This changes the example security analyzer from acmecorp/security
to just infosec, to reinforce that we will have certain analyzers
"out of the box" (infosec, cost, etc.)
* Rename the sample from ec2instance to webserver.
* Factor out the AMI map stuff into the AWS library, rather than the sample.
* Strongly type the instance type parameter using the aws.ec2.InstanceType union.
* Add a new webserver-comp example that demonstrates a bit of the ability to do
encapsulation, componentization, and multi-instantiation.
This change includes a simple cpuwatch package, as a demonstration of
how easy it can be to add CPU-level monitoring to an existing stack.
It contains a single API, enableAlarm, that takes an instance and
CPU % threshold; if the CPU ever exceeds that threshold for a sustained
period of time (3 consecutive minutes), an email will be generated.
To use this, first simply install the package as usual, e.g.
$ coco pack get cpuwatch
From there, you will need to configure the email address to send to:
$ coco env config <env> cpuwatch:config:emailAddress joe@pulumi.com
And finally, add an import plus call to enableAlarm for all instances:
import * as cpuwatch from "cpuwatch";
..
let instance = new aws.ec2.Instance(...);
cpuwatch.enableAlarm(instance, 90); // email if >90% CPU utilization.
As part of this, I've added the typing projections for the AWS SNS topic
and CloudWatch alarm resource types (but no providers just yet).
This adds a simple ACMECorp security analyzer example. It doesn't
actually do anything other than reject any AWS EC2 instance, claiming
it is vulnerable. Eventually we should do something smart.
This changes a few naming things:
* Rename "husk" to "environment" (`coco env` for short).
* Rename NutPack/NutIL to CocoPack/CocoIL.
* Rename the primary Nut.yaml/json project file to Coconut.yaml/json.
* Rename the compiled Nutpack.yaml/json file to Cocopack.yaml/json.
* Rename the package asset directory from nutpack/ to .coconut/.
This change eliminates the hard-coded region from the ec2instance
example, and instead uses the new `aws.config.region` configuration
variable. This makes the code more amenable to multi-instancing.
This change partially implements pulumi/coconut#94, by adding the
ability to name targets during creation and reuse those names during
deletion and update. This simplifies the management of deployment
records, checkpoints, and snapshots.
I've opted to call these things "husks" (perhaps going overboard with
joy after our recent renaming). The basic idea is that for any
executable Nut that will be deployed, you have a nutpack/ directory
whose layout looks roughly as follows:
nutpack/
bin/
Nutpack.json
... any other compiled artifacts ...
husks/
... one snapshot per husk ...
For example, if we had a stage and prod husk, we would have:
nutpack/
bin/...
husks/
prod.json
stage.json
In the prod.json and stage.json files, we'd have the most recent
deployment record for that environment. These would presumably get
checked in and versioned along with the overall Nut, so that we
can use Git history for rollbacks, etc.
The create, update, and delete commands look in the right place for
these files automatically, so you don't need to manually supply them.
This restructures the examples directory a bit, into three buckets:
* basic/: simplistic examples, like hello world and whatnot.
* conversions/: actual conversions from existing samples (with the source cited).
* scenarios/: more complex examples that demonstrate various features of the system.
I just introduced the examples/aws/ directory yesterday to hold some
of our basic AWS examples, as I expect us to start accumulating more
of them. So this just moves ec2instance underneath that directory.
We should probably think about further reorganizing these (e.g., into
demos/, scenarios/, etc.), ass we accumulate more examples.
This splits the overall example rack service into many sub-services.
This leads to a much cleaner factoring of the code. Note that there are
some missing properties -- it's hard to eyeball this without a real compiler.
But the essence of the example is pretty spot on.
I personally prefer this syntax. It is more "declarative" and, particularly
because we support true assignments, I feel like it's more representative of
what's going on. It's easier to scan for real imperative assignments. This
approach also eliminates a single horizontal character per assignment.
In this change, ":= new" declares a new resource.
In addition, we change arrays to be Go-like, in that zero-initialized
ones can be appended to safely, such that declaring a new instance is
done merely by stating "var arr: T[]".
