* added support for using GOOGLE_CREDENTIALS environment variable for authenticating with gs:// file state
* modified the change to fix#2791 as well
* fixed a small bug
* fixed linter error
* added code comments
* Update pkg/backend/filestate/gcpauth.go
Co-Authored-By: CyrusNajmabadi <cyrus.najmabadi@gmail.com>
* Parse provided backend url to check if scheme is gs://
* Update changelog
Fix the following warning and turn on "treat warnings as errors" for our .NET projects.
```
Deployment/InvokeOptions.cs(6,60): warning CS1574: XML comment has cref attribute 'InvokeAsync{T}(string,
```
A regression was introduced when we added support for non-Node.js Pulumi programs to run Policy Packs. With that change, we now pass the Policy Pack's full path as the plugin's pwd (so that it would load the `@pulumi/pulumi/cmd/run-policy-pack` Node module from the Policy Pack's node_modules rather than the program's node_modules), but we also pass the path to the policy pack as well. If the path is a full rooted path, this would work fine, and that's what our tests do. However, if a relative path is specified, then it will be looking to load the Policy Pack relative to the pwd, which doesn't produce a correct path leading to failures trying to load the Policy Pack.
Since the pwd is the policy pack path, we can simply pass the path as `"."` to the analyzer plugin, and it will load the policy pack in its pwd.
This change adds support for setting `PULUMI_PREFER_YARN` to true to opt-in to preferring `yarn` over `npm` when installing Node.js dependencies (and publishing Policy Packs). If `PULUMI_PREFER_YARN` is truthy, but `yarn` cannot be found on `$PATH`, we fallback to using `npm`. If `npm` can't be found on `$PATH`, we provide a more helpful error message.
Add support for a test option that indicates that failed update steps
should be retried. Currently the maximum number of retries (3) is not
configurable.
* Reword step failure message prefix during an `update`
The text "Plan applied failed: " is pretty inscrutable given our
current system. While both "plan" and "apply" are concepts inside the
the implementation of the CLI, we usually talk in terms of `preview`
and `update`. I suspect there are some cases where this prefix is not
100% technically correct, and if there's a better short way of saying
something more correct, I would love to adopt that instead, but as is,
I would really love to get rid of the "Plan apply failed" text in our
system, it pains me every time I read it.
* Do not prefix failed operation errors.
The text "Plan applied failed: " is pretty inscrutable given our
current system. While both "plan" and "apply" are concepts inside the
the implementation of the CLI, we usually talk in terms of `preview`
and `update`. I suspect there are some cases where this prefix is not
100% technically correct, and if there's a better short way of saying
something more correct, I would love to adopt that instead, but as is,
I would really love to get rid of the "Plan apply failed" text in our
system, it pains me every time I read it.
