The previous attempt to allow this didn't actually allow it, so this is
take two. As part of the previous attempt, I thought after tweaking the
test I had observed the test failing, and then succeeding after making
the product changes, but I must have been mistaken.
It turns out that our existing mocks tests weren't running at all
because of a missing `__init__.py` file. Once the missing `__init__.py`
is added, the tests run, but other tests ("test mode" tests) fail
because the code that creates the mocks and resources will run during
test discovery, and setting the mocks modifies global state.
To address the test issue, I've moved the mocks tests into their own
`test_with_mocks` package that can be run separately from other tests.
And addressed the original issue, by creating a root Stack resource if
one isn't already present when the mocks are set.
This change allows importing modules with calls to `pulumi.export` in unit tests. Previously, you'd have to structure the Python program in a way that avoids the `pulumi.export` from being called from unit tests.
* [sdk/python] Improve `ResoruceOptions.merge` type
The implementation correctly handles `None` inputs, so the type should allow these as well.
* Add CHANGELOG
The initial config represents any config that was specified programmatically to the Policy Pack, for Policy Packs that support programmatic configuration like AWSGuard.
It's not entirely clear why gRPC doesn't already report these cleanly as unimplemented, but for now we'll explicitly implement them to avoid any spurious warnings.
Fixes#4028.
The original version of this code caused inconsistencies in the event
loop associated with a given thread. These changes elimintate the event
loop shenanigans the mocks were trying to play by updating _sync_await
to create an event loop if none exists in the current thread.
It's possible that this will cause problems if the tests run on a
different thread than the original program, as the tests are likely to
end up waiting on outputs created by the program, which is not supported
in Python.
Also adds test coverage of the mocking/testing support in Python.
These changes add support for mocking the resource monitor to the NodeJS
and Python SDKs. The proposed mock interface is a simplified version of
the standard resource monitor that allows an end-user to replace the
usual implementations of ReadResource/RegisterResource and Invoke with
their own. This can be used in unit tests to allow for precise control
of resource outputs and invoke results.
These changes add a new method to the resource provider gRPC interface,
`GetSchema`, that allows consumers of these providers to extract
JSON-serialized schema information for the provider's types, resources,
and functions.
Set an option to increase the memory limit on protobuf
parsing so that we can handle larger gRPC payloads.
Co-authored-by: Evan Boyle <EvanBoyle@users.noreply.github.com>
The provider plugin protocol is to write a port number followed by `\n`. We must guarantee we do that even on Windows, so must avoid Python `print` statements which implicitly rewrite newlines to platform specific character sequences.
Fixes#3807.
PEP 561 specifies that packages which contain either inline type hints
or type stubs should indicate their support for type hints via
including a file named `py.typed` in the root of the package. Since
Pulumi already includes inline type hints, adding `py.typed` to the
Python SDK simply allows these hints to be used by mypy.
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.
If a stack output includes a `Resource`, we will as of a recent change
always show the output diff, but this diff will potentially include
unknowns, leading to spurious output like:
```
+ namePrefix : output<string>
```
These changes supress these diffs by adding a special key to the POJO
we generate for resources *during preview only* that indicates that the
POJO represents a Pulumi resource, then stripping all adds of unknown
values from diffs for objects marked with that key.
Fixes#3314.
Adds Python support for resource transformations aligned with the existing NodeJS support in #3174.
This PR also moves processing of transformations to earlier in the resource construction process (for both NodeJS and Python) to ensure that invariants established in the constructor cannot be violated by transformations. This change can technically be a breaking change, but given that (a) the transformations features was just released in 1.3.0 and (b) the cases where this is a breaking change are uncommon and unlikely to have been reliable anyway - it feels like a change we should make now.
Fixes#3283.
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.
We had been using `pandoc` to convert our README.md into a README.rst
for use with `setup.py` and the python package ecosystem. It turns out
that we can use markdown if we set a content type. So let's do that
and make things a little simpler.
While I was in the area, I made the encoding of UTF-8 explicit when
opening README.md.
- Do not use a non-zero-to-zero transition in the number of outstanding
RPCs to determine the completion of a Python program until after the
synchronous piece of the program has finished running is complete
- Instead of using a future to indicate that either a) a zero-to-one
transition in the number of outstanding RPCs has occurred, or b) an
unhandled exception has occurred, a) observe the transition itself,
and b) use an optional exception field to track the presence or
absence of an exception.
Fixes#3162.
