There are a few operations we do (stack rename, importing and edits)
where we will materialize a `deploy.Snapshot` from an existing
deployment, mutate it in somewhay, and then store it.
In these cases, we will just re-use the secrets manager that was used
to build the snapshot when we re-serialize it. This is less than ideal
in some cases, because many of these operations could run on an
"encrypted" copy of the Snapshot, where Inputs and Outputs have not
been decrypted.
Unfortunately, our system now is not set up in a great way to support
this and adding something like a `deploy.EncryptedSnapshot` would
require large scale code duplications.
So, for now, we'll take the hit of decrypting and re-encrypting, but
long term introducing a `deploy.EncryptedSnapshot` may be nice as it
would let us elide the encryption/decryption steps in some places and
would also make it clear what parts of our system have access to the
plaintext values of secrets.
When constructing a Deployment (which is a plaintext representation of
a Snapshot), ensure that we encrypt secret values. To do so, we
introduce a new type `secrets.Manager` which is able to encrypt and
decrypt values. In addition, it is able to reflect information about
itself that can be stored in the deployment such that we can
deserialize the deployment into a snapshot (decrypting the values in
the process) without external knowledge about how it was encrypted.
The ability to do this is import for allowing stack references to
work, since two stacks may not use the same manager (or they will use
the same type of manager, but have different state).
The state value is stored in plaintext in the deployment, so it **must
not** contain sensitive data.
A sample manager, which just base64 encodes and decodes strings is
provided, as it useful for testing. We will allow it to be varried
soon.
Use `result.Result` in more places, so when a confirmation prompt is
declined, we just return `result.Bail()` after printing a message
without the `error: ` prefix.
Fixes#2070
As of this change, all of the stack specific commands for `pulumi` now
allow passing `--stack` to operate on a different stack from the
default one.
Fixes#1648
* Add new 'pulumi state' command for editing state
This commit adds 'pulumi state unprotect' and 'pulumi state delete', two
commands that can be used to unprotect and delete resources from a
stack's state, respectively.
* Simplify LocateResource
* CR: Print yellow 'warning' before editing state
* Lots of CR feedback
* CR: Only delete protected resources when asked with --force
