This change begins to track objects that are implicated in the
creation of computed values. This ultimately translates into the
resource URNs which are used during dependency analysis and
serialization. This is part of pulumi/lumi#90.
This change implements `mapper.Encode` "for real" (that is, in a way
that isn't a complete embarrassment). It uses the obvious reflection
trickery to encode a tagged struct and its values as a JSON-like
in-memory map and collection of keyed values.
During this, I took the opportunity to also clean up a few other things
that had been bugging me. Namely, the presence of `mapper.Object` was
always error prone, since it isn't a true "typedef" in the sence that
it carries extra RTTI. Instead of doing that, let's just use the real
`map[string]interface{}` "JSON-map-like" object type. Even better, we
no longer require resource providers to deal with the mapper
infrastructure. Instead, the `Check` function can simply return an
array of errors. It's still best practice to return field-specific errors
to facilitate better diagnostics, but it's no longer required; and I've
added `resource.NewFieldError` to eliminate the need to import mapper.
As of this change, we can also consistently emit RPC structs with `lumi`
tags, rather than `lumi` tags on the way in and `json` on the way out.
This completes pulumi/lumi#183.
This changes the resource model to persist input and output properties
distinctly, so that when we diff changes, we only do so on the programmer-
specified input properties. This eliminates problems when the outputs
differ slightly; e.g., when the provider normalizes inputs, adds its own
values, or fails to produce new values that match the inputs.
This change simultaneously makes progress on pulumi/lumi#90, by beginning
tracking the resource objects implicated in a computed property's value.
I believe this fixes both #189 and #198.
This change fixes up a few things so that updates correctly deal
with output properties. This involves a few things:
1) All outputs stored on the pre snapshot need to get propagated
to the post snapshot during planning at various points. This
ensures that the diffing logic doesn't need to be special cased
everywhere, including both the Lumi and the provider sides.
2) Names are changed to "input" properties (using a new `lumi` tag
option, `in`). These are properties that providers are expected
to know nothing about, which we must treat with care during diffs.
3) We read back properties, via Get, after doing an Update just like
we do after performing a Create. This ensures that if an update
has a cascading impact on other properties, it will be detected.
4) Inspecting a change, prior to updating, must be done using the
computed property set instead of the real one. This is to avoid
mutating the resource objects ahead of actually applying a plan,
which would be wrong and misleading.
This change remembers which properties were computed as outputs,
or even just read back as default values, during a deployment. This
information is required in the before/after comparison in order to
perform an intelligent diff that doesn't flag, for example, the absence
of "default" values in the after image as deletions (among other things).
As I was in here, I also cleaned up the way the provider interface
works, dealing with concrete resource types, making it feel a little
richer and less like we're doing in-memory RPC.
This change makes progress on a few things with respect to properly
receiving properties on the engine side, coming from the provider side,
of the RPC boundary. The issues here are twofold:
1. Properties need to get unmapped using a JSON-tag-sensitive
marshaler, so that they are cased properly, etc. For that, we
have a new mapper.Unmap function (which is ultra lame -- see
pulumi/lumi#138).
2. We have the reverse problem with respect to resource IDs: on
the send side, we must translate from URNs (which the engine
knows about) and provider IDs (which the provider knows about);
similarly, then, on the receive side, we must translate from
provider IDs back into URNs.
As a result of these getting fixed, we can now properly marshal the
resulting properties back into the resource object during the plan
execution, alongside propagating and memoizing its ID.
This change introduces the notion of a computed versus an output
property on resources. Technically, output is a subset of computed,
however it is a special kind that we want to treat differently during
the evaluation of a deployment plan. Specifically:
* An output property is any property that is populated by the resource
provider, not code running in the Lumi type system. Because these
values aren't available during planning -- since we have not yet
performed the deployment operations -- they will be latent values in
our runtime and generally missing at the time of a plan. This is no
problem and we just want to avoid marshaling them in inopportune places.
* A computed property, on the other hand, is a different beast altogehter.
Although true one of these is missing a value -- by virtue of the fact
that they too are latent values, bottoming out in some manner on an
output property -- they will appear in serializable input positions.
Not only must we treat them differently during the RPC handshake and
in the resource providers, but we also want to guarantee they are gone
by the time we perform any CRUD operations on a resource. They are
purely a planning-time-only construct.
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
Resolves#137.
This is an initial pass for supporting JavaScript lambda syntax for defining an AWS Lambda Function.
A higher level API for defining AWS Lambda Function objects `aws.lambda.FunctionX` is added which accepts a Lumi lambda as an argument, and uses that lambda to generate the AWS Lambda Function code package.
LumiJS lambdas are serialized as the JavaScript text of the lambda body, along with a serialized version of the environment that is deserialized at runtime and used as the context for the body of the lambda.
Remaining work to further improve support for lambdas is being tracked in #173, #174, #175, and #177.
This changes the object mapper infrastructure to offer more fine-grained
reporting of errors, and control over verification, during the mapping from
an untyped payload to a typed one. As a result, we can eliminate a bit of
the explicit unmarshaling goo in the AWS providers (but not all of it; I'm
sure there is more we can, and should, be doing here...)
This change is mostly just a rename of Moniker to URN. It does also
prefix resource URNs to have a standard URN namespace; in other words,
"urn🥥<name>", where <name> is the same as the prior Moniker.
This is a minor step that helps to prepare us for pulumi/coconut#109.
This change introduces a new RPC function to the provider interface;
in pseudo-code:
UpdateImpact(id ID, t Type, olds PropertyMap, news PropertyMap)
(bool, PropertyMap, error)
Essentially, during the planning phase, we will consult each provider
about the nature of a proposed update. This update includes a set of
old properties and the new ones and, if the resource provider will need
to replace the property as a result of the update, it will return true;
in general, the PropertyMap will eventually contain a list of all
properties that will be modified as a result of the operation (see below).
The planning phase reacts to this by propagating the change to dependent
resources, so that they know that the ID will change (and so that they
can recalculate their own state accordingly, possibly leading to a ripple
effect). This ensures the overall DAG / schedule is ordered correctly.
This change is most of pulumi/coconut#105. The only missing piece
is to generalize replacing the "ID" property with replacing arbitrary
properties; there are hooks in here for this, but until pulumi/coconut#90
is addressed, it doesn't make sense to make much progress on this.
This change is a first whack at implementing updates.
Creation and deletion plans are pretty straightforward; we just take
a single graph, topologically sort it, and perform the operations in
the right order. For creation, this is in dependency order (things
that are depended upon must be created before dependents); for deletion,
this is in reverse-dependency order (things that depend on others must
be deleted before dependencies). These are just special cases of the more
general idea of performing DAG operations in dependency order.
Updates must work in terms of this more general notion. For example:
* It is an error to delete a resource while another refers to it; thus,
resources are deleted after deleting dependents, or after updating
dependent properties that reference the resource to new values.
* It is an error to depend on a create a resource before it is created;
thus, resources must be created before dependents are created, and/or
before updates to existing resource properties that would cause them
to refer to the new resource.
Of course, all of this is tangled up in a graph of dependencies. As a
result, we must create a DAG of the dependencies between creates, updates,
and deletes, and then topologically sort this DAG, in order to determine
the proper order of update operations.
To do this, we slightly generalize the existing graph infrastructure,
while also specializing two kinds of graphs; the existing one becomes a
heapstate.ObjectGraph, while this new one is resource.planGraph (internal).
This commit includes a basic AWS resource provider. Mostly it is just
scaffolding, however, it also includes prototype implementations for EC2
instance and security group resource creation operations.
