We now support the `ManagedPolicyARNs` property on `aws.iam.Role`, enabling pre-defined policies to be attaced to an IAM role as part of it's definition.
To make it easier to discover and work with AWS managed policies, constants for all currently defined AWS managed policy ARNs are provided in the IAM module.
Inline policies are still not yet supported.
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.
During various refactorings pertaining to dynamic vs static invoke, the
intrinsics machinery broke in a few ways:
* MaybeIntrinsic needs to happen elsewhere. Rather than doing it at binding
time, we can do it when populating the properties in the first place,
reusing the same property symbol from one access to the next.
* Last week, I refactored the intrinsics module to also have a dynamic sub-
module. The tokens in the Intrinsics map needed to also get updated.
* As a result of the tokens now containing member parts, we can't use
tokens.Token.Name, since it is assumed to be a simple name; instead, we
need to convert to tokens.ModuleMember, and then fetch Name. To be honest,
this is probably worth revisiting, since I think most people would expect
Name to just work regardless of the Token kind. The assert that it be
Simple might be a little overly aggressive...
This checkin fixes these issues. I'm not pushing to master just yet,
however, until there are some solid tests in here to prevent future breakage.
This is triggering the need for all downstream consumers of the Lumi
library to enable experimental decorators support. Given that it's not
even clear where we'll land on this (pending pulumi/lumi#137), and in
fact are actively revisiting the relationship between functions and
assets, I'm removing this annotation.
If a resource has no required properties, there's no need for an
argument object. (In the extreme case, perhaps the resource has
*no* properties.) This is a minor usability thing, but it's far
nicer to write code like
let buck = new Bucket("images");
than it is to write code like
let buck = new Bucket("images", {});
The storing of output properties won't work correctly until pulumi/lumi#90
is completed. The update logic sees properties that weren't supplied by the
developer and thinks this means an update is required; this is easy to fix
but better to just roll into the overall pending change that will land soon.
This change keeps the lumi prefix on our CLI tools.
As @lukehoban pointed out in person, as soon as we do pulumi/coconut#98,
most people (other than compiler authors themselves) won't actually be
typing the commands. And, furthermore, the commands aren't all that bad.
Eventually I assume we'll want something like `lumi-js`, or
`lumi-js-compiler`, so that binaries are discovered dynamically in a way
that is extensible for future languages. We can tackle this during #98.
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.
We need a stable object key enumeration order and we might as well leverage
ECMAScript's definition for this. As of ES6, key ordering is specified; see
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-ordinaryownpropertykeys.
I haven't fully implemented the "numbers come first part" (we can do this as
soon as we have support for Object.keys()), but the chronological part works.
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.
This change, part of pulumi/coconut#62, adds support for ECMAScript
local functions. This leverages the recent support for lambdas.
The change also adds some new test cases for the various forms.
Here are some examples of supported forms:
function outer() {
// simple named inner function:
function inner1() { .. };
// anonymous inner function (just a lambda):
let inner2 = function() { ... };
// named and bound inner function:
let inner3 = function inner4() { ... };
}
These merely compile into lambdas that have been bound to local
variables with the appropriate names.
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.
This change recognizes and emits lambdas correctly in CocoJS (as part
of pulumi/coconut#62). The existing CocoIL representation for lambdas
worked just fine for functions, lambdas, and local functions. There
still isn't runtime support, but that comes next.