This changes the RPC interfaces between Lumi and provider ever so
slightly, so that we can track default properties explicitly. This
is required to perform accurate diffing between inputs provided by
the developer, inputs provided by the system, and outputs. This is
particularly important for default values that may be indeterminite,
such as those we use in the bridge to auto-generate unique IDs.
Otherwise, we fail to reapply defaults correctly, and trick the
provider into thinking that properties changed when they did not.
This is a small step towards pulumi/lumi#306, in which we will defer
even more responsibility for diffing semantics to the providers.
This change serializes unknown properties anywhere in the entire
property structure, including deeply embedded inside object maps, etc.
This is now done in such a way that we can recover both the computed
nature of the serialized property, along with its expected eventual
type, on the other side of the RPC boundary.
This will let us have perfect fidelity with the new bridge's view on
computed properties, rather than special casing them on "one side".
As part of the bridge bringup, I've discoverd that the property state
returned from Creates does *not* always equal the state that is then
read from calls to Get. (I suspect this is a bug and that they should
be equivalent, but I doubt it's fruitfal to try and track down all
occurrences of this; I bet it's widespread). To cope with this, we will
return state from Create and Update, instead of issuing a call to Get.
This was a design we considered to start with and frankly didn't have
a super strong reason to do it the current way, other than that it seemed
elegant to place all of the Get logic in one place.
Note that providers may choose to return nil, in which case we will read
state from the provider in the usual Get style.
This adds a ReadLocations RPC function to the engine interface, alongside
the singular ReadLocation. The plural function takes a single token that
represents a module or class and we will then return all of the module
or class (static) properties that are currently known.
This change adds an engine gRPC interface, and associated implementation,
so that plugins may do interesting things that require "phoning home".
Previously, the engine would fire up plugins and talk to them directly,
but there was no way for a plugin to ask the engine to do anything.
The motivation here is so that plugins can read evaluator state, such
as config information, but this change also allows richer logging
functionality than previously possible. We will still auto-log any
stdout/stderr writes; however, explicit errors, warnings, informational,
and even debug messages may be written over the Log API.
This change restructures a lot more pertaining to deployments, snapshots,
environments, and the like.
The most notable change is that the notion of a deploy.Source is introduced,
which splits the responsibility between the deploy.Plan -- which simply
understands how to compute and carry out deployment plans -- and the idea
of something that can produce new objects on-demand during deployment.
The primary such implementation is evalSource, which encapsulates an
interpreter and takes a package, args, and config map, and proceeds to run
the interpreter in a distinct goroutine. It synchronizes as needed to
poke and prod the interpreter along its path to create new resource objects.
There are two other sources, however. First, a nullSource, which simply
refuses to create new objects. This can be handy when writing isolated
tests but is also used to simulate the "empty" environment as necessary to
do a complete teardown of the target environment. Second, a fixedSource,
which takes a pre-computed array of objects, and hands those, in order, to
the planning engine; this is mostly useful as a testing technique.
Boatloads of code is now changed and updated in the various CLI commands.
This further chugs along towards pulumi/lumi#90. The end is in sight.
This change modifies the existing resource provider RPC interface slightly.
Instead of the Create API returning the bag of output properties, we will
rely on the Get API to do so. As a result, this change takes an initial
whack at implementing Get on all existing AWS resources. The Get API needs
to return a fully populated structure containing all inputs and outputs.
Believe it or not, this is actually part of pulumi/lumi#90.
This was done because just returning output properties is insufficient.
Any input properties that weren't supplied may have default values, for
example, and it is wholly reasonable to expect Lumi scripts to depend on
those values in addition to output values.
This isn't fully functional in its current form, because doing this
change turned up many other related changes required to enable output
properties. For instance, at the moment resource properties are defined
in terms of `resource.URN`s, and yet unfortunately the provider side
knows nothing of URNs (instead preferring to deal in `resource.ID`s).
I am going to handle that in a subsequent isolated change, since it will
have far-reaching implications beyond just modifying create and get.
This change includes approximately 1/3rd of the change necessary
to support output properties, as per pulumi/lumi#90.
In short, the runtime now has a new hidden type, Latent<T>, which
represents a "speculative" value, whose eventual type will be T,
that we can use during evaluation in various ways. Namely,
operations against Latent<T>s generally produce new Latent<U>s.
During planning, any Latent<T>s that end up in resource properties
are transformed into "unknown" property values. An unknown property
value is legal only during planning-time activities, such as Check,
Name, and InspectChange. As a result, those RPC interfaces have
been updated to include lookaside maps indicating which properties
have unknown values. My intent is to add some helper functions to
make dealing with this circumstance more correct-by-construction.
For now, using an unresolved Latent<T> in a conditional will lead
to an error. See pulumi/lumi#67. Speculating beyond these -- by
supporting iterative planning and application -- is something we
want to support eventually, but it makes sense to do that as an
additive change beyond this initial support. That is a missing 1/3.
Finally, the other missing 1/3rd which will happen much sooner
than the rest is restructuing plan application so that it will
correctly observe resolution of Latent<T> values. Right now, the
evaluation happens in one single pass, prior to the application, and
so Latent<T>s never actually get witnessed in a resolved state.
