We model providers as resources in our state file, but we were
neglecting to set Outputs for these resources. This was problematic
when we started to try to run DiffConfig, because when diffing a
resource we compare thed new inputs and the old outputs, but the
resource never had any old outputs, so it was impossible for the
provider to see what the old state of the resource was.
To fix this, we now reflect the inputs we use the create the provider
reference as outputs on the resource.
* Introduce a new package under ciutil for individual CI systems. Split-out each CI system with env var detection for each.
* Add Bitbucket Piplines env var detection.
* Update changelog with note about adding Bitbucket Pipelines detection.
* Rename the CI system structs.
* Move files from ciutil/systems to ciutil. Un-export some types that don't need visibility beyond the ciutil package.
* Un-export DetectSystem function and the System type.
* Add a test for CI systems which we only know by name and nothing else, i.e. those with just a baseCI implementation.
This commit implements read_resource functionality for Python in a
manner identical to the NodeJS implementation. If an "id" option is
passed to a resource via ResourceOptions on construction, that resource
will be read and not created.
The Kubernetes provider wanted to return Unimplemented for both
DiffConfig and CheckConfig. However, due to an interaction between the
package we used to construct the error we are returning and the
package we are using to actually construct the gRPC server for the
provider, we ended up in a place where the provider would actually end
up returning an error with code "Unknown", and the /text/ of the
message included information about it being due to the RPC not being
implemented.
So, when we try to call Diff/Check config on the provider, detect this
case as well and treat messages of this shape as if the provider just
returned "Unimplemented".
If --suppress-outputs is passed to `pulumi preview --json`, we
should not emit the stack outputs. This change fixespulumi/pulumi#2765.
Also adds a test case for this plus some variants of updates.
In 3621c01f4b, we implemented
CheckConfig/DiffConfig incorrectly. We should have explicilty added
the handlers (to supress the warnings we were getting) but returned an
error saying the RPC was not implemented. Instead, we just returned
success but passed back bogus data. This was "fine" at the time
because nothing called these methods.
Now that we are actually calling them, returning incorrect values
leads to errors in grpc. To deal with this we do two things:
1. Adjust the implementations in the dynamic provider to correctly
return not implemented. This allows us to pick up the default engine
behavior going forward.
2. Add some code in CheckConfig/DiffConfig that handle the gRPC error
that is returned when calling methods on the dynamic provider and fall
back to the legacy behavior. This means updating your CLI will not
cause issues for existing resources where the SDK has not been
updated.
For provider plugins, the gRPC interfaces expect that a URN would be
included as part of the DiffConfig/CheckConfig request, which means we
need to flow this value into our Provider interface.
This change does that.
This is an attempt towards #2684
I am not sure if this is too simplistic for now OR we need to
consider if this will break anyones automation as they maybe using
the output of that command as plain text
Before:
```
▶ pulumi whoami
stack72
```
After:
```
▶ pulumi whoami
User: stack72
Backend URL: https://app.pulumi.com/stack72
```
A customer reported an issue where operations would fail with the
following error:
```
error: could not deserialize deployment: unknown secrets provider type
```
The problem here was the customer's deployment had a
`secrets_provider` section which looked like the following:
```
"secrets_providers": {
"type": ""
}
```
And so our code to try to construct a secrets manager from this thing
would fail, as our registry does not contain any information about a
provider with an empty type.
We do two things in this change:
1. When serializing a deployment, if there is no secrets manager,
don't even write the `secrets_provider` block. This helps for cases
where we are roundtripping deployments that did not have a provider
configured (i.e. they were older stacks that did not use secrets)
2. When deserializing, if we see an empty secrets provider like the
above, interpret it to mean "this deployment has no secrets". We set
up a decrypter such that if it ends up haiving secrets, we panic
eagerly (since this is a logical bug in our system somewhere).
We were not actually calling our colorization routines, which lead to
printing this very confusing text:
```
<{%reset%}> --outputs:--<{%reset%}>
```
When running updates with `--diff` or when drilling into details of a
proposed operation, like a refresh.
Providers from plugins require that configuration value be
strings. This means if we are passing a secret string to a
provider (for example, trying to configure a kubernetes provider based
on some secret kubeconfig) we need to be careful to remove the
"secretness" before actually making the calls into the provider.
Failure to do this resulted in errors saying that the provider
configuration values had to be strings, and of course, the values
logically where, they were just marked as secret strings
Fixes#2741
We have to actually return the value we compute instead of just
dropping it on the floor and treating the underlying values as
primitive.
I ran into this during dogfooding, the added test case would
previously panic.
We adopt a new algoritm for annotating secrets, which works as
follows:
If the source and destinations are both property maps, annotate their
secrets deeply.
Otherwise, if there is an property in both the input and output arrays
with the same name and the value in the inputs has secrets /anywhere/
in it, mark the output itself a secret.
This means, for example, an array in the inputs with a secret value as
one of the elmenets will mean in the outputs the entire array value is
marked as a secret. This is done because arrays often are treated as
sets by providers and so we really shouldn't consider ordering. It
also means that if a value is added to the array as part of the
operation we still mark the new array as an output even though the
values may not be indentical to the inputs.
For providers which do not natively support secrets (which is all of
them today), we annotate output values coming back from the provider
if there is a coresponding secret input in the inputs we passed in.
This logic was not tearing into rich objects, so if you passed a
secret as a member of an array or object into a resource provider, we
would lose the secretness on the way back.
Because of the interaction with Check (where we call Check and then
take the values returned by the provider as inputs for all calls to
Diff/Update), this would apply not only to the Output values of a
resource but also the Inputs (because the secret metadata would not
flow from the inputs of check to the outputs).
This change augments our logic which transfers secrets metadata from
one property map to another to handle these additional cases.
The linter had been warning me for a while that some comments we had
confused it. I fixed this. Then the linter found a place where we
were ignoring a return value. Looking at it, it feels like we want to
continue in this case, so I just `contract.IgnoreError`'d it.
Validate the value is well formed much earlier so you don't end up
seeing you've picked a bad value in the middle of trying to create
your new stack. Update the helptext to list currently supported
values.
Fixes#2727
The change does two things:
- Reorders some calls in the CLI to prevent trying to create a secrets
manager twice (which would end up prompting twice).
- Adds a cache inside the passphrase secrets manager such that when
decrypting a deployment, we can re-use the one created earlier in
the update. This is sort of a hack, but is needed because otherwise
we would fail to decrypt the deployment, meaning that if you had a
secret value in your deployment *and* you were using local
passphrase encryption *and* you had not set PULUMI_CONFIG_PASSPHRASE
you would get an error asking you to do so.
Fixes#2729
Because of our Proxy types, every output will return something when
you call `.isSecret` on it. However, if you call it on an output from
a version of `@pulumi/pulumi` which did not support secrets, the thing
you will get back is not undefined but rather an `Output` which wraps
undefined.
Because of this, care must be taken when reading this property and so
a small helper is introduced and used in places we care about.
