Fix the following warning and turn on "treat warnings as errors" for our .NET projects.
```
Deployment/InvokeOptions.cs(6,60): warning CS1574: XML comment has cref attribute 'InvokeAsync{T}(string,
```
The test files are currently included in the npm package, and we have packages that depend on the test files currently, so when installing the linkable `@pulumi/pulumi` package locally, don't delete the tests.
Codepaths which could result in a hang will print a message to the console indicating the problem, along with a link to documentation on how to restructure code to best address it.
`StackReference.getOutputSync` and `requireOutputSync` have been deprecated as they may cause hangs on some combinations of Node and certain OS platforms. `StackReference.getOutput` and `requireOutput` should be used instead.
Fixes building grpc package with gcc8 and newer
Fixes building grpc package for node 13.x
Matches minor grpc release (1.24.x) to version used by dotnet sdk
Earlier changes to the get-version script were not adopted by the Python
SDK Makefile. This caused package publishing to skip uploads due to
missing versions.
- Use a mutex + condition variable instead of a channel for
synchronizaiton in order to allow multiple calls to resolve/reject
- Properly handle outputs that are resolved to other outputs, especially
if those outputs are not of exactly type Output
- Remove the Value() methods that allowed prompt access to output values
- Add variants of `Apply` that take a context parameter
- Ensure that resource outputs properly incorporate their resource as
a dependency
- Make `Output` a plain struct. Uninitialized outputs will be treated as
resolved and unknown. This makes conversions between output
types more ergonomic.
Contributes to #3492.
A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable`
that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the
case.
Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be
where any of this went right, because several days later, after
wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must
confess that I've forgotten if any of it had.
`AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously
call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the
iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based.
That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by
callback on the stream object, like:
call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...});
Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines
into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your
CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in
abstraction. So we're off to a good start.
Until this point, we've depended on a library,
`callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge.
Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is
not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it
returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete.
Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which
honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think
about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of
finishing this idiotic bug.
Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes
from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing?
Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just
passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been
up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way,
a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try
to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but
which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that
gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing
un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't
need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends.
But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this
very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency.
This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we
know.
It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job
at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking
this code over for me.
These changes restore a more-correct version of the behavior that was
disabled with #3014. The original implementation of this behavior was
done in the SDKs, which do not have access to the complete inputs for a
resource (in particular, default values filled in by the provider during
`Check` are not exposed to the SDK). This lack of information meant that
the resolved output values could disagree with the typings present in
a provider SDK. Exacerbating this problem was the fact that unknown
values were dropped entirely, causing `undefined` values to appear in
unexpected places.
By doing this in the engine and allowing unknown values to be
represented in a first-class manner in the SDK, we can attack both of
these issues.
Although this behavior is not _strictly_ consistent with respect to the
resource model--in an update, a resource's output properties will come
from its provider and may differ from its input properties--this
behavior was present in the product for a fairly long time without
significant issues. In the future, we may be able to improve the
accuracy of resource outputs during a preview by allowing the provider
to dry-run CRUD operations and return partially-known values where
possible.
These changes also introduce new APIs in the Node and Python SDKs
that work with unknown values in a first-class fashion:
- A new parameter to the `apply` function that indicates that the
callback should be run even if the result of the apply contains
unknown values
- `containsUnknowns` and `isUnknown`, which return true if a value
either contains nested unknown values or is exactly an unknown value
- The `Unknown` type, which represents unknown values
The primary use case for these APIs is to allow nested, properties with
known values to be accessed via the lifted property accessor even when
the containing property is not fully know. A common example of this
pattern is the `metadata.name` property of a Kubernetes `Namespace`
object: while other properties of the `metadata` bag may be unknown,
`name` is often known. These APIs allow `ns.metadata.name` to return a
known value in this case.
In order to avoid exposing downlevel SDKs to unknown values--a change
which could break user code by exposing it to unexpected values--a
language SDK must indicate whether or not it supports first-class
unknown values as part of each `RegisterResourceRequest`.
These changes also allow us to avoid breaking user code with the new
behavior introduced by the prior commit.
Fixes#3190.
After creating an initial Pulumi .NET project, it will be natural for some folks (who are unfamiliar with Pulumi) to try to run it via `dotnet run`, as that's how you'd typically run a .NET Core program. Doing so today fails with:
```
Unhandled exception. System.InvalidOperationException: Environment did not contain: PULUMI_MONITOR
at Pulumi.Deployment..ctor()
at Pulumi.Deployment.RunAsync(Func`1 func)
at Pulumi.Deployment.RunAsync(Func`1 func)
at Pulumi.Deployment.RunAsync(Action action)
at Program.Main() in /Users/user/temp/quickstart/Program.cs:line 9
at Program.<Main>()
```
Instead, provide a more descriptive error message indicating that the pulumi CLI should be used to run the program. We return the same error as we do for Node.js and Python.
```
Unhandled exception. System.InvalidOperationException: Program run without the Pulumi engine available; re-run using the `pulumi` CLI
at Pulumi.Deployment..ctor()
at Pulumi.Deployment.RunAsync(Func`1 func)
at Pulumi.Deployment.RunAsync(Func`1 func)
at Pulumi.Deployment.RunAsync(Action action)
at Program.Main() in /Users/user/temp/quickstart/Program.cs:line 9
at Program.<Main>()
```
