- Differentiate between resource references that have no ID (i.e. because
the referenced resource is not a CustomResource) and resource references
that have IDs that are not known. This is necessary for proper
backwards-compatible serialization of resource references.
- Fix the key that stores a resource reference's package version in the
.NET, NodeJS, and Python SDKs.
- Ensure that the resource monitor's marshalling/unmarshalling of inputs
and outputs to/from calls to `Construct` retain resource references as
appropriate.
- Fix serialization behavior for resources -> resource references in the
Go SDK: if a resource's ID is unknown, it should still be serialized
as a resource reference, albeit a reference with an unknown ID.
This is necessary due to the way we've factored the libraries imported
by users into modules. The primary alternative is to ensure that each
child module imports the root module for a package and registers itself
with that package where necessary to prevent circular dependencies. This
simplifies the core SDKs slightly at the cost of greater complications
in the generated SDKs; the approach taken by these changes seems like a
more maintainable option.
Contributes to #2430.
Co-authored-by: Justin Van Patten <jvp@justinvp.com>
Resources are serialized as their URN, ID, and package version. Each
Pulumi package is expected to register itself with the SDK. The package
will be invoked to construct appropriate instances of rehydrated
resources. Packages are distinguished by their name and their version.
This is the foundation of cross-process resources.
Related to #2430.
Co-authored-by: Mikhail Shilkov <github@mikhail.io>
Co-authored-by: Luke Hoban <luke@pulumi.com>
Co-authored-by: Levi Blackstone <levi@pulumi.com>
These changes add initial support for the construction of remote
components. For now, this support is limited to the NodeJS SDK;
follow-up changes will implement support for the other SDKs.
Remote components are component resources that are constructed and
managed by plugins rather than by Pulumi programs. In this sense, they
are a bit like cloud resources, and are supported by the same
distribution and plugin loading mechanisms and described by the same
schema system.
The construction of a remote component is initiated by a
`RegisterResourceRequest` with the new `remote` field set to `true`.
When the resource monitor receives such a request, it loads the plugin
that implements the component resource and calls the `Construct`
method added to the resource provider interface as part of these
changes. This method accepts the information necessary to construct the
component and its children: the component's name, type, resource
options, inputs, and input dependencies. It is responsible for
dispatching to the appropriate component factory to create the
component, then returning its URN, resolved output properties, and
output property dependencies. The dependency information is necessary to
support features such as delete-before-replace, which rely on precise
dependency information for custom resources.
These changes also add initial support for more conveniently
implementing resource providers in NodeJS. The interface used to
implement such a provider is similar to the dynamic provider interface
(and may be unified with that interface in the future).
An example of a NodeJS program constructing a remote component resource
also implemented in NodeJS can be found in
`tests/construct_component/nodejs`.
This is the core of #2430.
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.
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.
There current RPC model for Pulumi allows secret values to be deeply
embedded in lists or maps, however at the language level, since we
track secrets via `Output<T>` we need to ensure that during
deserialization, if a list or a map contains a secret, we need to
instead treat it as if the entire list or map was a secret.
We have logic in the language runtimes to do this as part of
serialization. There were a few issues this commit addresses:
- We were not promoting secretness across arrays in either Node or
Python
- For Python, our promotion logic was buggy and caused it to behave in
a manner where if any value was secret, the output values of the
object would be corrupted, because we'd incorrectly treat the
outputs as a secret who's value was a map, instead of a map of
values (some of which may be secret).
This caused very confusing behavior, because it would appear that a
resource creation call just did not set various output properties when
one or more of them ended up containing a secret.
Because of our Proxy types, every output will return something when
you call `.isSecret` on it. However, if you call it on an output from
a version of `@pulumi/pulumi` which did not support secrets, the thing
you will get back is not undefined but rather an `Output` which wraps
undefined.
Because of this, care must be taken when reading this property and so
a small helper is introduced and used in places we care about.
Since we don't support nesting secrets (as they are modeled as
Outputs), as we deserialize, we push the secretness up to top level,
where we will correctly use it to mark the output as secret.
This fixes an issue where if you created a StackReference resource,
with a mix of secret and non secret properties, you would see the
"wire form" of the secrets as values on the `outputs` map of the
StackReference resource.
When serializing values, if the other end of the resource monitor
interface does not support secrets (e.g. it is an older CLI), don't
pass secrets to it.
`Output<T>` now tracks if an output represents secret data or
not. When secret, it is marshalled as a secret value and we signal to
the resource monitor that it is safe to return secret values to us.
The `pulumi` module exports a new functiion, `secret<T>` which works
in the same was a `output<T>` except that it marks the underlying
output as a secret.
This secret bit flows as you would expect across `all`'s and
`apply`'s.
Note that in process memory, the raw value is still present, when you
run an `apply` for a secret output, you are able to see the raw
value. In addition, if you capture a secret output with a lambda, the
raw value will be present in the captured source text.
We changed the `pulumi update` command to be `pulumi up` a while back
(`update` is an alias of `up`). This change just makes it so we refer to
the actual command, `pulumi up`, instead of the older `pulumi update`.
* Revert "Make toString and toJSON internal (#2489)"
This reverts commit 7579b84f73.
* Revert "Update error message to point at docs. (#2488)"
This reverts commit 9156c26a2e.
* Revert "Throw on Output.toString and toJSON (#2486)"
This reverts commit c33b4505c0.
This implements the new algorithm for deciding which resources must be
deleted due to a delete-before-replace operation.
We need to compute the set of resources that may be replaced by a
change to the resource under consideration. We do this by taking the
complete set of transitive dependents on the resource under
consideration and removing any resources that would not be replaced by
changes to their dependencies. We determine whether or not a resource
may be replaced by substituting unknowns for input properties that may
change due to deletion of the resources their value depends on and
calling the resource provider's Diff method.
This is perhaps clearer when described by example. Consider the
following dependency graph:
A
__|__
B C
| _|_
D E F
In this graph, all of B, C, D, E, and F transitively depend on A. It may
be the case, however, that changes to the specific properties of any of
those resources R that would occur if a resource on the path to A were
deleted and recreated may not cause R to be replaced. For example, the
edge from B to A may be a simple dependsOn edge such that a change to
B does not actually influence any of B's input properties. In that case,
neither B nor D would need to be deleted before A could be deleted.
In order to make the above algorithm a reality, the resource monitor
interface has been updated to include a map that associates an input
property key with the list of resources that input property depends on.
Older clients of the resource monitor will leave this map empty, in
which case all input properties will be treated as depending on all
dependencies of the resource. This is probably overly conservative, but
it is less conservative than what we currently implement, and is
certainly correct.
This change adds some new constructors for output properties:
1) We alias `Output.create` to `output`, more like Promise's various
construction methods. This reads better and is more discoverable.
2) A new `Output.createMap` function will accept an array of inputs,
along with a selector function for key/value pairs, and produces
an output map with said keys and values inside of it.
3) A new `Output.createGroupByMap` functon will similarly accept an
array of inputs and a key/value selector, however it creates an
output map with said keys, but where values are arrays of values,
and all duplicate keys will lead to appending to said arrays.
Tests to come in a subsequent checkin.
This change partly addresses pulumi/pulumi#1611, by permitting you
to export a promise at the top-level, and have it be recognized as
a stack output. In other words, you can now say things like
async function main() {
...
return {
a: "x",
...,
z: 42,
};
}
module.exports = main();
and your Pulumi program will record distinct outputs as you'd hope:
---outputs:---
a: "x"
...
z: 42
This is arguably just a bug in the way we implemented stack outputs.
The remainder of the requests in #1611 will remain open for future
design and discussion, as they have more subtle ramifications.
* Revert "Parallelize much more of resource creation in the JS language provider SDK (#1618)"
This reverts commit 4edd244a26.
* Revert "Process our async-work-queue in parallel. (#1619)"
This reverts commit b8c1cb9574.
Before the changes in #1414, all output properties were guaranteed to
have values after deserialization. After #1414, any properties with no
value were no longer resolved, which was treated as an error. These
changes resolve all missing proprties to `undefined`. If a property is
missing during an update, its `undefined` value is marked as known.
These changes add support for distinguishing an output property with
an unknown value from an output property with a known value that is
undefined.
In a broad sense, the Pulumi property type system is just JSON with the
addition of unknown values. Notably absent, however, are undefined
values. As it stands, our marshalers between JavaScript and Pulumi
property values treat all undefined JavaScript values as unknown Pulumi
values. Unfortunately, this conflates two very different concepts:
unknown Pulumi values are intended to represent values of output
properties that are unknown at time of preview, _not_ values that are
known but undefined. This results in difficulty reasoning about when
transforms are run on output properties as well as confusing output in
the `diff` view of Pulumi preview (user-specifed undefined values are
rendered as unknown values).
As it turns out, we already have a way to decide whether or not an
Output value is known or not: Output.performApply. These changes rename
this property to `isKnown`, clarify its meaning, and take advantage of
the result to decide whether or not an Output value should marshal as
an unknown Pulumi value.
This also allowed these changes to improve the serialization of
undefined object keys and array elements s.t. we better match JavaScript
to JSON serialization behavior (undefined object keys are omitted;
undefined array elements are marshaled as `null`).
Fixes https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-cloud/issues/483.
Rather than filtering out the `id` and `urn` properties when serializing
the inputs to an invoke, pass these properties along. This enables the
use of invoke endpoints that accepts these as inputs (e.g. the endpoint
that backs `aws.ec2.getSubnet`).
This change adopts `x is T` style of RTTI inquiry, which fits much
more nicely with TypeScript's typechecking flow.
Thanks to @lukehoban for teaching me a new trick today! :-)
This change moves us away from using JavaScript RTTI, by way of
`instanceof`, for built-in Pulumi types. If we use `instanceof`,
then the same logical type loaded from separate copies of the
SDK package -- as will happen in SxS scenarios -- are considered
different. This isn't actually what we want. The solution is
simple: implement our own quasi-RTTI solution, using __pulumi*
properties and manual as* and is* functions. Note that we could
have skipped the as* and is* functions, but I found that they led
to slightly easier to read code.
There is one strange thing in here, which I spoke to
@CyrusNajmabadi about: SerializedOutput<T>, because it implements
Output<T> as an _interface_, did not previously masquerade as an
actual Output<T>. In other words, `instanceof` would have returned
false, and indeed a few important properties (like promise) are
missing. This change preserves that behavior, although I'll admit
that this is slightly odd. I suspect we'll want to revisit this as
part of https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/1074.
Fixes https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/1203.
Prior to this change, if you ended up with multiple Pulumi SDK
packages loaded side-by-side, we would fail in obscure ways. The
reason for this was that we initialize and store important state
in static variables. In the case that you load the same library
twice, however, you end up with separate copies of said statics,
which means we would be missing engine RPC addresses and so on.
This change adds the ability to recover from this situation by
mirroring the initialized state in process-wide environment
variables. By doing this, we can safely recover simply by reading
them back when we detect that they are missing. I think we can
eventually go even further here, and eliminate the entry point
launcher shim altogether by simply having the engine launch the
Node program with the right environment variables. This would
be a nice simplification to the system (fewer moving pieces).
There is still a risk that the separate copy is incompatible.
Presumably the reason for loading multiple copies is that the
NPM/Yarn version solver couldn't resolve to a shared version.
This may yield obscure failure modes should RPC interfaces change.
Figuring out what to do here is part of pulumi/pulumi#957.
This fixespulumi/pulumi#777 and pulumi/pulumi#1017.
This change wires up the new Read RPC method in such a manner that
Pulumi programs can invoke it. This is technically not required for
refreshing state programmatically (as in pulumi/pulumi#1081), however
it's a feature we had eons ago and have wanted since (see
pulumi/pulumi#83), and will allow us to write code like
let vm = aws.ec2.Instance.get("my-vm", "i-07043cd97bd2c9cfc");
// use any property from here on out ...
The way this works is simply by bridging the Pulumi program via its
existing RPC connection to the engine, much like Invoke and
RegisterResource RPC requests already do, and then invoking the proper
resource provider in order to read the state. Note that some resources
cannot be uniquely identified by their ID alone, and so an extra
resource state bag may be provided with just those properties required.
This came almost for free (okay, not exactly) and will come in handy as
we start gaining experience with reading live state from resources.
