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.
This is helpful some round trip cases where we many not be able to
build the encrypter or decrypter but we will end up not needing
them. When we fail to load the manager, we return a manager that has
the correct state, but will error when it tries to preform any
operations. However, if there are no secrets in the deployment, these
methods will never be called and we'll be able to correctly roundtrip
checkpoints even without having access to the password (since there
were no secret values to decrypt or encrypt).
We were dropping new and old states on the floor instead of including
them as part of the previewed operation due to a logic error (we want
to append them when there are no errors from serialization, vs when
there are errors).
When creating a new stack using the local backend, the default
checkpoint has no deployment. That means there's a nil snapshot
created, which means our strategy of using the base snapshot's secrets
manager was not going to work. Trying to do so would result in a panic
because the baseSnapshot is nil in this case.
Using the secrets manager we are going to use to persist the snapshot
is a better idea anyhow, as that's what's actually going to be burned
into the deployment when we serialize the snapshot, so let's use that
instead.
This test ensures that our secrets support works by deploying
resources with a mix of secret and plantext inputs and then checks the
deployment file to ensure that everything is marked as a secret.
All existing implementations would fail if secret values were passed
to the dyanmic provider. When the provider says it does not support
secrets, the engine will do basic secrets tracking (any outputs with
the same names as secret inputs become secrets themselves).
Since we don't support nesting secrets (as they are modeled as
Outputs), as we deserialize, we push the secretness up to top level,
where we will correctly use it to mark the output as secret.
This fixes an issue where if you created a StackReference resource,
with a mix of secret and non secret properties, you would see the
"wire form" of the secrets as values on the `outputs` map of the
StackReference resource.
In our system, we model secrets as outputs with an additional bit of
metadata that says they are secret. For Read and Register resource
calls, our RPC interface says if the client side of the interface can
handle secrets being returned (i.e. the language SDK knows how to
sniff for the special signiture and resolve the output with the
special bit set).
For Invoke, we have no such model. Instead, we return a `Promise<T>`
where T's shape has just regular property fields. There's no place
for us to tack the secretness onto, since there are no Outputs.
So, for now, don't even return secret values back across the invoke
channel. We can still take them as arguments (which is good) but we
can't even return secrets as part of invoke calls. This is not ideal,
but given the way we model these sources, there's no way around
this. Fortunately, the result of these invoke calls are not stored in
the checkpoint and since the type is not Output<T> it will be clear
that the underlying value is just present in plaintext. A user that
wants to pass the result of an invoke into a resource can turn an
existing property into a secret via `pulumi.secret`.
