refactor: move pulumi interactions out of top-level example #407
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
| @@ -24,7 +25,7 @@ | |||
| "eslint": "^8.21.0", | |||
| "eslint-config-oclif": "^4", | |||
| "eslint-config-oclif-typescript": "^1.0.2", | |||
| "globby": "^13", | |||
| "globby": "^11", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was weird. I was getting an error with the ES6 import styles between oclif and globby. Had to downgrade to fix. Known issue with globby.
Error:
(node:84782) [ERR_REQUIRE_ESM] Error Plugin: @theniledev/events-example [ERR_REQUIRE_ESM]: require() of ES Module /Users/sdelamater/work/nile-js/packages/events-example/node_modules/globby/index.js from /Users/sdelamater/work/nile-js/node_modules/@oclif/core/lib/config/plugin.js not supported.
Instead change the require of index.js in /Users/sdelamater/work/nile-js/node_modules/@oclif/core/lib/config/plugin.js to a dynamic import() which is available in all CommonJS modules.
module: @oclif/core@1.13.0
|
If you're up for it, it would also be great to refactor |
| // destroy any stacks that shouldnt exist | ||
| for (const id of Object.keys(stacks)) { | ||
| if (!instances[id]) { | ||
| this.destroyStack(id); | ||
| this.deployment.destroyStack(id); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // create any stacks that should exist | ||
| for (const id of Object.keys(instances)) { | ||
| if (!stacks[id]) { | ||
| this.createStack(instances[id]); | ||
| this.deployment.createStack(instances[id]); | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@norwood - I'm seeing some inconsistencies with instances that get created then deleted before running this script. Still debugging synchronization issues.
| acc[instance.id] = instance; | ||
| } | ||
| if (flags.statusCheckOnly) { | ||
| console.log({ stacks, instances }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this.debug is more accurate. Also I think linting doesn't like this? or at least it shouldn't.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, this leaked in from local debugging. I'll remove it.
|
@scottydawg suggestion: instead of asking "is it more demoable?" (we won't know until we try), why not record yourself demoing this to an imaginary engineer? |
Some basic refactor and renaming things in the events example. This moves most of the pulumi-specific code out into a
PulumiAwsDeploymentobject that any curious parties can drill down into, but abstracts it away for those that mostly care about reconciling with Nile. @sriramsub – is that more demo'able?This also starts toward a path that could be a little more cloud-agnostic. (Or one that's not so tightly coupled to Pulumi, at least.)