The wording for refresh doesn't accurately convey that the operations
aren't actually mutating your resources, but instead are simply changing
your checkpoint state. This change (hopefully) helps in two ways:
First, put text just before the prompt:
Do you want to perform this refresh?
No resources will be modified as part of this refresh; just your stack's state will be.
Second, alter the summary ever-so-slightly, from:
info: 2 changes performed:
~ 2 resources updated
3 resources unchanged
to:
info: 2 changes refreshed:
~ 2 resources updated
3 resources unchanged
This reads just slightly better, and removes any sense of panic I might
have otherwise had that my refresh just did something wrong.
As I was in here, since I had to pass UpdateKind information to new
places, I cleaned up the situation where we had three mostly-similar
enums (but which actually diverged) and several areas where we were
using untyped strings for this same information. Now there's just one.
This fixespulumi/pulumi#1551.
Replace the Source-based implementation of refresh with a phase that
runs as the first part of plan execution and rewrites the snapshot in-memory.
In order to fit neatly within the existing framework for resource operations,
these changes introduce a new kind of step, RefreshStep, to represent
refreshes. RefreshSteps operate similar to ReadSteps but do not imply that
the resource being read is not managed by Pulumi.
In addition to the refresh reimplementation, these changes incorporate those
from #1394 to run refresh in the integration test framework.
Fixes#1598.
Fixespulumi/pulumi-terraform#165.
Contributes to #1449.
* Protobuf changes to record dependencies for read resources
* Add a number of tests for read resources, especially around replacement
* Place read resources in the snapshot with "external" bit set
Fixespulumi/pulumi#1521. This commit introduces two new step ops: Read
and ReadReplacement. The engine generates Read and ReadReplacement steps
when servicing ReadResource RPC calls from the language host.
* Fix an omission of OpReadReplace from the step list
* Rebase against master
* Transition to use V2 Resources by default
* Add a semantic "relinquish" operation to the engine
If the engine observes that a resource is read and also that the
resource exists in the snapshot as a non-external resource, it will not
delete the resource if the IDs of the old and new resources match.
* Typo fix
* CR: add missing comments, DeserializeDeployment -> DeserializeDeploymentV2, ID check
We currently display at most two rows for messages that are not
associated with a URN: one for those that arrive before the stack
resource is first observed and one for those that arrive after the stack
resource is first observed. The former is labeled "global"; the latter
is the row associated with the stack resource. These changes remove the
duplication by reassociating the row used for events with no URN that
arrive before the stack resource with the stack resource once it has
been observed.
Fixes#1385.
Our current strategy for the progress display on non-TTYs causes us to
display multiple identical rows for each resource when the row is a
preview or a no-op. This behavior is not particularly useful, and
generally just makes the display noisier than it needs to be.
These changes avoid displaying resource rows without meaningful output
by supressing the display of resource output events that are delivered
during a preview or that correspond to a no-op update.
Fixes#1384.
This changes three minor UX things in the CLI's update flow:
1. Use bright blue for column headers, since the dark blue is nearly
invisible on a black background.
2. Move the operation symbol to the far left, as a sort of "bullet
point" for each line of output. This was how they initial symbols
were designed and this helps to glance at the summary to see what's
going on.
3. Shorten some of the column headers that didn't add extra clarity.