* add initial pull-request workflow
* run SDK test all
* add SDK tests
* fixup make targets
* add dist target
* revert back to 5 updates
* disable test
* add issue for test disabling
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.
* Make `async:true` the default for `invoke` calls (#3750)
* Switch away from native grpc impl. (#3728)
* Remove usage of the 'deasync' library from @pulumi/pulumi. (#3752)
* Only retry as long as we get unavailable back. Anything else continues. (#3769)
* Handle all errors for now. (#3781)
* Do not assume --yes was present when using pulumi in non-interactive mode (#3793)
* Upgrade all paths for sdk and pkg to v2
* Backport C# invoke classes and other recent gen changes (#4288)
Adjust C# generation
* Replace IDeployment with a sealed class (#4318)
Replace IDeployment with a sealed class
* .NET: default to args subtype rather than Args.Empty (#4320)
* Adding system namespace for Dotnet code gen
This is required for using Obsolute attributes for deprecations
```
Iam/InstanceProfile.cs(142,10): error CS0246: The type or namespace name 'ObsoleteAttribute' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) [/Users/stack72/code/go/src/github.com/pulumi/pulumi-aws/sdk/dotnet/Pulumi.Aws.csproj]
Iam/InstanceProfile.cs(142,10): error CS0246: The type or namespace name 'Obsolete' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) [/Users/stack72/code/go/src/github.com/pulumi/pulumi-aws/sdk/dotnet/Pulumi.Aws.csproj]
```
* Fix the nullability of config type properties in C# codegen (#4379)
Also:
- Cleaned up existing tags so they're consistently at the bottom of doc comments where they should be
- Cleaned up some unused imports while I was taking a pass over the files
- Marked one function `@deprecated` that should be deprecated
A user who calls `StreamInvoke` probably expects the `AsyncIterable`
that is returned to gracefully terminate. This is currently not the
case.
Where does something like this go wrong? A better question might be
where any of this went right, because several days later, after
wandering into civilization from the great Wilderness of Bugs, I must
confess that I've forgotten if any of it had.
`AsyncIterable` is a pull-based API. `for await (...)` will continuously
call `next` ("pull") on the underlying `AsyncIterator` until the
iterable is exhausted. But, gRPC's streaming-return API is _push_ based.
That is to say, when a streaming RPC is called, data is provided by
callback on the stream object, like:
call.on("data", (thing: any) => {... do thing ...});
Our goal in `StreamInvoke` is to convert the push-based gRPC routines
into the pull-based `AsyncIterable` retrun type. You may remember your
CS theory this is one of those annoying "fundamental mismatches" in
abstraction. So we're off to a good start.
Until this point, we've depended on a library,
`callback-to-async-iterator` to handle the details of being this bridge.
Our trusting nature and innocent charm has mislead us. This library is
not worthy of our trust. Instead of doing what we'd like it to do, it
returns (in our case) an `AsyncIterable` that will never complete.
Yes,, this `AsyncIterable` will patiently wait for eternity, which
honestly is kind of poetic when you sit down in a nice bath and think
about that fun time you considered eating your computer instead of
finishing this idiotic bug.
Indeed, this is the sort of bug that you wonder where it even comes
from. Our query libraries? Why aren't these `finally` blocks executing?
Is our language host terminating early? Is gRPC angry at me, and just
passive-aggrssively not servicing some of my requests? Oh god I've been
up for 48 hours, why is that wallpaper starting to move? And by the way,
a fun interlude to take in an otherwise very productive week is to try
to understand the gRPC streaming node client, which is code-gen'd, but
which also takes the liberty of generating itself at runtime, so that
gRPC is code-gen'ing a code-gen routine, which makes the whole thing
un-introspectable, un-debuggable, and un-knowable. That's fine, I didn't
need to understand any of this anyway, thanks friends.
But we've come out the other side knowing that the weak link in this
very sorry chain of incredibly weak links, is this dependency.
This commit removes this dependency for a better monster: the one we
know.
It is at this time that I'd like to announce that I am quitting my job
at Pulumi. I thank you all for the good times, but mostly, for taking
this code over for me.
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.
Adds the ability to provide `transformations` to modify the properties and resource options that will be used for any child resource of a component or stack.
This offers an "escape hatch" to modify the behaviour of a component by peeking behind it's abstraction. For example, it can be used to add a resource option (`additionalSecretOutputs`, `aliases`, `protect`, etc.) to a specific known child of a component, or to modify some input property to a child resource if the component does not (yet) expose the ability to control that input directly. It could also be used for more interesting scenarios - such as:
1. Automatically applying tags to all resources that support them in a stack (or component)
2. Injecting real dependencies between stringly-referenced resources in a Helm Chart
3. Injecting explicit names using a preferred naming convention across all resources in a stack
4. Injecting `import` onto all resources by doing a lookup into a name=>id mapping
Because this feature makes it possible to peek behind a component abstraction, it must be used with care in cases where the component is versioned independently of the use of transformations. Also, this can result in "spooky action at a distance", so should be used judiciously. That said - this can be used as an escape hatch to unblock a wide variety of common use cases without waiting on changes to be made in a component implementation.
Each transformation is passed the `resource`, `name`, `type`, `props` and `opts` that are passed into the `Resource` constructor for any resource descended from the resource that has the transformation applied. The transformation callback can optionally return alternate versions of the `props` and `opts` to be used in place of the original values provided to the resource constructor.
Fixes#2068.
Change is 3.6.2 of typescript have caused their code generation to no
longer emit a call to `this` inside an arrow function, so this test is
no longer causing an error to be thrown.
For now, just accept the baseline, but I'll file an issue so we can
actually get a real failing test here.
We intend to replace PULUMI_TEST_MODE with better testing support
that doesn't suffer from all the pitfalls of our current approach.
Unfortunately, we don't yet have complete guidance or validation
that the new approaches will work for all existing end users. So,
until we do, we'll take a lighter touch approach here, and simply
not encourage new usage of PULUMI_TEST_MODE.
Issue #3045 will remain open to track a mroe permanent fix.
- Ensure that type assertions are guarded, and that incorrectly-typed
properties return errors rather than panicking
- Expand the asset/archive tests in the Node SDK to ensure that eventual
archives and assets serialize and deserialize correctly
Fixes#2836.
Fixes#3016.
