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.
The eval test in its current form depends on the Lumi standard library
as an external dependency. This means that, in order to run the test,
you must first install the standard library. Not only is this poor
practice, it is also interfering with our ability to get our new CI/CD
system up and running. This change fixes all of that by mocking the one
standard library runtime function that we need in order to hook the intrinsic.
This change adds some machinery to make it easier to write evaluator tests,
and also implements some tests for the lumi:runtime/dynamic:isFunction intrinsic.
This change implements property accessors (getters and setters).
The approach is fairly basic, but is heavily inspired by the ECMAScript5
approach of attaching a getter/setter to any property slot (even if we don't
yet fully exploit this capability). The evaluator then needs to track and
utilize the appropriate accessor functions when loading locations.
This change includes CocoJS support and makes a dent in pulumi/coconut#66.
This addresses a bug where we did not reconstruct the correct lexical
environment when restoring a lambda's captured context. Namely, the local
variables scope "drifted" with respect to the evaluation scope slots.
This is an example program that triggered it:
function mkeighty() {
let eighty = 80;
return () => eighty;
}
let group = new ec2.SecurityGroup(..., {
ingress: [ ..., fromPort: mkeighty()(), ... ],
});
I am going to work on turning this into a regression test with my next
checkin; there's a fair bit of test infrastructure "machinery" I need
to put in place, but the time has come to lay the foundation.
This change completes implementing lambdas in the runtime, closing
out pulumi/coconut#62. The change is mostly straightforward, with
most changes coming down to the fact that functions may now exist
that themselves aren't definitions (like class/module members).
The function stub machinery has also been updated to retain the
environment in which a lambda was created, effectively "capturing"
the lexically available variables. Note that this is *not* dynamic
scoping, which will be a problem down the road when/if we want to
support Ruby. My guess is we'll just have a completely different
DynamicallyScopedLambdaExpression opcode.
The previous shape of SequenceExpression only permitted expressions
in the sequence. This is pretty common in most ILs, however, it usually
leads to complicated manual spilling in the event that a statement is needed.
This is often necessary when, for example, a compiler is deeply nested in some
expression production, and then realizes the code expansion requires a
statement (e.g., maybe a new local variable must be declared, etc).
Instead of requiring complicated code-gen, this change permits SequenceExpression
to contain an arbitrary mixture of expression/statement prelude nodes, terminating
with a single, final Expression which yields the actual expression value. The
runtime bears the burden of implementing this which, frankly, is pretty trivial.
I've tripped over pulumi/coconut#141 a few times now, particularly with
the sort of dynamic payloads required when creating lambdas and API gateways.
This change implements support for computed property initializers.
This change introduces TryLoadDynamicExpression. This is similar to
the existing LoadDynamicExpression opcode, except that it will return
null in response to a missing member (versus the default of raising
an exception). This is to enable languages like JavaScript to encode
operations properly (which always yields undefined/nulls), while still
catering to languages like Python (which throw exceptions).
This change introduces decorator support for CocoJS and the corresponding
IL/AST changes to store them on definition nodes. Nothing consumes these
at the moment, however, I am looking at leveraging this to indicate that
certain program fragments are "code" and should be serialized specially
(in support of Functions-as-lambdas).
This change implements simple index-based CocoPy subscripts (and
not the more fully featured slicing ones).
Alongside this, we relax a binder-time check that all dynamic
access types must be strings. The eval code already handles
numeric (array) accesses, so we will permit these to flow through.
This change emits all CocoJS interfaces as records. This allows us to
safely construct instances of them from Python using anonymous properties,
essentially emulating object literals.
For example, given a CocoJs interface defined as such:
interface Foo {
x;
y?;
z;
}
we can easily construct fresh instances using normal JS literals:
let f = { x: 42, z: "bar" };
But, Python doesn't have the equivalent literal syntax, wedging us.
It's now possible to initialize an instance from CocoPy as follows:
let f = Foo(x=42, z="bar")
This leverages the notion of records and primary properties, as
described in our CocoPack/CocoIL design documents.
Due to Python's ... interesting ... scoping rules, we want to avoid
forcing block scopes in certain places. Instead, we will let arbitrary
statements take their place. Of course, this could be a block, but it
very well could be a multi-statement (essentially a block that doesn't
imply a new lexical scope), or anything, really.
* Move checking the validity of a derived class with no constructor
from evlauation to binding (verification). Furthermore, make it
a verification error instead of an assert, and make the checking
complete (i.e., don't just check for the existence of a base class,
also check for the existence of a ctor, recursively).
* Refactor the constructor accessor out of the evaluator and make it
a method, Ctor, on the Function abstraction.
* Add a recursive Module population case to property initialization.
* Only treat the top-most frame in a module's initializer as belonging
to the module scope. This avoids interpreting block scopes within
that initializer as belonging to the module scope. Ultimately, it's
up to the language compiler to decide where to place scopes, but this
gives it more precise control over module scoping.
* Assert against unsupported named/star/keyword args in CocoPy.
This change adds support for naming imports. At the moment, this simply
makes the names dynamically accessible for languages that do dynamic loads
against module objects, versus strongly typed tokens. The basic scheme
is to keep two objects per module: one that contains the globals and its
prototype parent that contains just the exports. This ensures we can
share the same slots while attaining the desired information hiding
(e.g., when handing out an object for dynamic access, we give out this
parent objects, while when loading globals from within a module, we use
the childmost one that contains all private and exported variables).
The old model for imports was to use top-level declarations on the
enclosing module itself. This was a laudible attempt to simplify
matters, but just doesn't work.
For one, the order of initialization doesn't precisely correspond
to the imports as they appear in the source code. This could incur
some weird module initialization problems that lead to differing
behavior between a language and its Coconut variant.
But more pressing as we work on CocoPy support, it doesn't give
us an opportunity to dynamically bind names in a correct way. For
example, "import aws" now needs to actually translate into a variable
declaration and assignment of sorts. Furthermore, that variable name
should be visible in the environment block in which it occurs.
This change switches imports to act like statements. For the most
part this doesn't change much compared to the old model. The common
pattern of declaring imports at the top of a file will translate to
the imports happening at the top of the module's initializer. This
has the effect of initializing the transitive closure just as it
happened previously. But it enables alternative models, like imports
inside of functions, and -- per the above -- dynamic name binding.
Previously, it was an error to look up a local that didn't exist.
Now it is common, thanks to dynamic lookups. A few code-paths didn't
previously handle this adequately; now they do.
This rearranges the way dynamic loads work a bit. Previously, they¬
required an object, and did a dynamic lookup in the object's property¬
map. For real dynamic loads -- of the kind Python uses, obviously,¬
but also ECMAScript -- we need to search the "environment".
This change searches the environment by looking first in the lexical¬
scope in the current function. If a variable exists, we will use it.¬
If that misses, we then look in the module scope. If a variable exists¬
there, we will use it. Otherwise, if the variable is used in a non-lval
position, an dynamic error will be raised ("name not declared"). If
an lval, however, we will lazily allocate a slot for it.
Note that Python doesn't use block scoping in the same way that most
languages do. This behavior is simply achieved by Python not emitting
any lexically scoped blocks other than at the function level.
This doesn't perfectly achieve the scoping behavior, because we don't
yet bind every name in a way that they can be dynamically discovered.
The two obvious cases are class names and import names. Those will be
covered in a subsequent commit.
Also note that we are getting lucky here that class static/instance
variables aren't accessible in Python or ECMAScript "ambiently" like
they are in some languages (e.g., C#, Java); as a result, we don't need
to introduce a class scope in the dynamic lookup. Some day, when we
want to support such languages, we'll need to think about how to let
languages control the environment probe order; for instance, perhaps
the LoadDynamicExpression node can have an "environment" property.
This changes the CocoPy default load type from static to dynamic,
since we don't have enough information at compile-time to emit
fully qualified tokens. Previously, Coconut only supported dynamic
loads with object targets, however we will need to support the full
scope search (class, module, global, etc).
This change makes node optional in the lookupBasicType function, which is
necessary in cases where diagnostics information isn't available (such as
with configuration application). This eliminates an assert when you fat-
finger a configuration key. The associated message was missing apostrophes.
This change eliminates the need to constantly type in the environment
name when performing major commands like configuration, planning, and
deployment. It's probably due to my age, however, I keep fat-fingering
simple commands in front of investors and I am embarrassed!
In the new model, there is a notion of a "current environment", and
I have modeled it kinda sorta just like Git's notion of "current branch."
By default, the current environment is set when you `init` something.
Otherwise, there is the `coco env select <env>` command to change it.
(Running this command w/out a new <env> will show you the current one.)
The major commands `config`, `plan`, `deploy`, and `destroy` will prefer
to use the current environment, unless it is overridden by using the
--env flag. All of the `coco env <cmd> <env>` commands still require the
explicit passing of an environment which seems reasonable since they are,
after all, about manipulating environments.
As part of this, I've overhauled the aging workspace settings cruft,
which had fallen into disrepair since the initial prototype.
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 adds the ability to specify analyzers in two ways:
1) By listing them in the project file, for example:
analyzers:
- acmecorp/security
- acmecorp/gitflow
2) By explicitly listing them on the CLI, as a "one off":
$ coco deploy <env> \
--analyzer=acmecorp/security \
--analyzer=acmecorp/gitflow
This closes out pulumi/coconut#119.
This change introduces the basic requirements for analyzers, as per
pulumi/coconut#119. In particular, an analyzer can implement either,
or both, of the RPC methods, Analyze and AnalyzeResource. The former
is meant to check an overall deployment (e.g., to ensure it has been
signed off on) and the latter is to check individual resources (e.g.,
to ensure properties of them are correct, such as checking style,
security, etc. rules). These run simultaneous to overall checking.
Analyzers are loaded as plugins just like providers are. The difference
is mainly in their naming ("analyzer-" prefix, rather than "resource-"),
and the RPC methods that they support.
This isn't 100% functional since we need a way to specify at the CLI
that a particular analyzer should be run, in addition to a way of
recording which analyzers certain projects should use in their manifests.
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 adds a new Check RPC method on the provider interface,
permitting resource providers to perform arbitrary verification on
the values of properties. This is useful for validating things
that might be difficult to express in the type system, and it runs
before *any* modifications are run (so failures can be caight early
before it's too late). My favorite motivating example is verifying
that an AWS EC2 instance's AMI is available within the target region.
This resolvespulumi/coconut#107, although we aren't using this
in any resource providers just yet. I'll add a work item now for that...
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 does a few things:
* First and foremost, it tracks configuration variables that are
initialized, and optionally prints them out as part of the
prelude/header (based on --show-config), both in a dry-run (plan)
and in an actual deployment (apply).
* It tidies up some of the colorization and messages, and includes
nice banners like "Deploying changes:", etc.
* Fix an assertion.
* Issue a new error
"One or more errors occurred while applying X's configuration"
just to make it easier to distinguish configuration-specific
failures from ordinary ones.
* Change config keys to tokens.Token, not tokens.ModuleMember,
since it is legal for keys to represent class members (statics).
This change adds support for configuration maps.
This is a new feature that permits initialization code to come from markup,
after compilation, but before evaluation. There is nothing special with this
code as it could have been authored by a user. But it offers a convenient
way to specialize configuration settings per target husk, without needing
to write code to specialize each of those husks (which is needlessly complex).
For example, let's say we want to have two husks, one in AWS's us-west-1
region, and the other in us-east-2. From the same source package, we can
just create two husks, let's say "prod-west" and "prod-east":
prod-west.json:
{
"husk": "prod-west",
"config": {
"aws:config:region": "us-west-1"
}
}
prod-east.json:
{
"husk": "prod-east",
"config": {
"aws:config:region": "us-east-2"
}
}
Now when we evaluate these packages, they will automatically poke the
right configuration variables in the AWS package *before* actually
evaluating the CocoJS package contents. As a result, the static variable
"region" in the "aws:config" package will have the desired value.
This is obviously fairly general purpose, but will allow us to experiment
with different schemes and patterns. Also, I need to whip up support
for secrets, but that is a task for another day (perhaps tomorrow).
As part of pulumi/coconut#94 -- adding targeting capabilities -- I've
decided to (yet again) reorganize the deployment commands a bit. This
makes targets ("husks") more of a first class thing.
Namely, you must first initialize a husk before using it:
$ coco husk init staging
Coconut husk 'staging' initialized; ready for deployments
Eventually, this is when you will be given a choice to configure it.
Afterwards, you can perform deployments. The first one is like a create,
but subsequent ones just figure out the right thing to do and do it:
$ ... make some changes ...
$ coco husk deploy staging
... standard deployment progress spew ...
Finally, should you want to teardown an entire environment:
$ coco husk destroy staging
... standard deletion progress spew for all resources ...
Coconut husk 'staging' has been destroyed!
