This PR just wires the `Package.Main` field to the Pulumi Service (and in subsequent PRs, the `pulumi-service` and `pulumi-ppc` repos).
@joeduffy , should we just upload the entire `package.Package` type with the `UpdateProgramRequest` type? I'm not sure we want to treat that type as part of part of our public API surface area. But on the other hand, we'll need to mirror relevant fields in N places if we don't.
The first exception relates to how we launch plugins. Plugin paths are
calculated using a well-known set of rules; this makes `gas` suspicious
due to the need to use a variable to store the path of the plugin.
The second and third are in test code and aren't terribly concerning.
The latter exception asks `gas` to ignore the access key we hard-code
into the integration tests for our Pulumi test account.
The fourth exception allows use to use more permissive permissions for
the `.pulumi` directory than `gas` would prefer. We use `755`; `gas`
wants `700` or stricter. `755` is the default for `mkdir` and `.git` and
so seems like a reasonable choice for us.
This PR adds integration tests for exercising `pulumi init` and the `pulumi stack *` commands. The only functional change is merging in https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/pull/492 , which I found while writing the tests and (of course 😁 ) wrote a regression for.
To do this I introduce a new test driver called `PulumiProgram`. This is different from the one found in the `testing/integration`package in that it doesn't try to prescribe a workflow. It really just deals in executing commands, and confirming strings are in the output.
While it doesn't hurt to have more tests for `pulumi`, my motivation here was so that I could reuse these to ensure I keep the same behavior for my pending PR that implements Cloud-enabled variants of some of these commands.
