https://pulumi.com logo
Join Slack
Powered by
This message was deleted.
# general
s
This message was deleted.
q
@glamorous-printer-66548 thanks for all that. I'm curious, how do you deploy a new environment? Do you trigger a build of each of the smaller services? My challenge right now is I want each service to be independently deployable, but for disaster recovery; I want a single deploy everything action too. Is that possible with your setup?
b
im evalutating pulumi for similar multi-layered approach where i want to have data in a layer, vpc in a layer etc.. so far I'm leaning towards full deployments (and really all deployments) using make targets where it will scrape the outputs of another project and then import them into the config of another, something like (obvious psuedocode):
Copy code
make deploy-compute:
   cd ${PWD}/network
   NETWORK=$(pulumi output)
   cd ${PWD}/data
   DATA=$(pulumi output)
   cd ${PWD}/compute
   pulumi config set ${DATA}
   pulumi config set ${NETWORK}
   pulumi update
make deploy-all:
   cd ${PWD}/network
   pulumi update
   NETWORK=$(pulumi output)
   cd ${PWD}/data
   pulumi config set {$NETWORK}
   pulumi update
   DATA=$(pulumi output)
   cd ${PWD}/compute
   pulumi config set ${DATA}
   pulumi config set ${NETWORK}
   pulumi update
no idea if it will work properly, but from what I see that's more or less how you'd have to do it.. would love to hear other opinions
g
@quiet-wolf-18467 yes to create a new environment we have to checkout the repo and trigger a build of each of the smaller services (although some services live in the same stack, so it’s not like I have to trigger 15-20 builds, but rather 8 or so). Currently this is manual but in a few days / weeks I will probably create some script which does that in one shot. What @brave-angle-33257 suggested actually reminds me of terragrunt which is a CLI wrapper around terraform and allows running operations in multiple terraform modules at once (e.g. 
terragrunt apply-all
) and respect the dependencies between them for ordering: https://github.com/gruntwork-io/terragrunt#the-apply-all-destroy-all-output-all-and-plan-all-commands . I wonder if pulumi could introduce something similar @creamy-potato-29402 ? Should I open an issue? In general currently I minimize the need to pass around outputs from one stack to another by simply using predictable resource identifiers (which is easy in GCP), shared TS libs / modules / constants and getting other data like the IP addresses of a GKE cluster, by using pulumi’s 
get<Resource>
functions (e.g. 
getCluster
). Terraform btw also has the ability to query the state of another module directly https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/terraform/d/remote_state.html#example-usage which is another way of sharing config between stacks. Maybe worth another pulumi feature request? 🙂
b
Haven't seen terragrunt before, looks interesting. I feel that in my opinion, a better way maybe to arrange things would be have the folder name be the project, then next level would be maybe a selectable "deployment" like dev/prod/qa.. (similar to how the stacks work now) and then the code inside would be stacks, a stack could be really any organzier structure to place resources, more like how cloudformation does things. I might make an "rds" stack or an "rds-api" and "rds-app" stacks, and in there place one or more rds resources. That stack would be named under pulumi as project-env-rds-app. Something like:
Copy code
$ pulumi select deployment prod
$ pulumi stacks
pulumi:
   mycompany-prod-network
   mycompany-prod-security-group
   mycompany-prod-rds-api
   mycompany-prod-rds-app
   mycompany-prod-asg-app
   mycompany-prod-lambda
$ pulumi stack detail rds-app
   aws:rds:postgres/AppTracking
   aws:rds:mysql/AppUser
$ pulumi stack detail lambda
   aws:lambda:function/Login
   aws:lambda:function/Logout
   aws:iam:role/LoginRole
   aws:iam:role/LogoutRole
Furthermore, I could maybe create a group, and using the upcoming RBAC control allow users to deploy that group as one unit, or any of the individual items inside, like an app-compute group, that might be ASG and Lambda.
Copy code
$ pulumi select deployment prod
$ pulumi create group app-compute --stack asg-app --stack lambda
$ pulumi group detail app-compute
  mycompany-prod-asg-app
  mycompany-prod-lambda
$ pulumi group update app-compute
(updating)...
I realize this is pretty different than what they have currently, but to me it makes a lot of sense for how I've been arranging things in the past using some internal tools. I'm going to spend some time seeing how feasible my 
make
approach would work.
g
idk, i’m not sure if I fully understand your proposed project structure (i’m also more familiar with GCP+K8s than raw AWS) but judging from your example I feel you’re over-engineering this a bit / creating too many “micro” stacks which have a lot of dependencies to other stacks. In general I’m also a fan of organizing / grouping things by their business function, rather than technology. In my project structure I’m aiming to manage the things that are specific to an app right along the application code and basically have one app-stack per environment. An app stack is for example named 
myawesomeapp-staging
and can include various things like: container image, k8s Service, Deployment, IAM service accounts and the role bindings to that account, backing services like the db, redis cache (if not shared by other apps), a supporting cloud function (lambda), alerting rules etc. To create or remove a new app I just want to touch one stack and not changing 5/6 stacks and then be super careful in which order I have to deploy them etc.. This is just my personal opinion, your project structure may work very well too, but as stated above my goal is to give developers a lot of control and responsibility about their application AND the application-specific infrastructure and not become the ops / devops gatekeeper. In fact I had wednesday an internal pulumi demo in front of some team members incl. the CTO and now regular developers already start modifying their app specific pulumi code on their own which signals to me that this works.
oh but as for using different folders for different environments: I generally like that idea in some cases too, that’s why I requested this feature: https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi/issues/2014
regarding the RBAC control: I think to really prevent people from making changes in some stack or a part of a stack you just need to limit their AWS IAM permissions. The RBAC control for pulumi just controls access to the pulumi checkpoint/state storage and not the AWS infrastructure.
b
Great, thanks for the info and the issue link. Yea, I was sort of thinking outloud, I think the project approach is still better. The separate projects could be complete repos that we could control access to, built off components/packages in other repos and give developers access to those, similar to my "group" suggestion. I'm from an AWS background, but actually working with Azure now. Was hoping to use Python, but seeing that the support there is lacking a bit, and based on 2.7 which is an older version. Also, no k8s (planning to use also) in python, so possible I'd have to go TS on everything. I appreciate the feedback, I think Pulumi is a very exciting tool, I'm just not sure yet it's mature enough for what I need. I opened an issue on the pulumi-azure just now, I plan to keep on evaluating it for the time being. My issue tonight: https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-azure/issues/131
g
Yeah I’m myself actually a huge TypeScript fan and use it regularly since 2 years (and convinced teams in both companies I worked for in those 2 years to embrace it), so being able to write infra code in TypeScript was a huge pro for me. I would probably also prefer it over Python 3.7 for this task. I’m a big fan of static typing for non-trivial projects as it serves as implicit documentation and ensures correct usage of reuse libraries by other team members. While I’ve used the type annotation syntax in python 3.7 a bit I’m under the impression that TypeScripts type system is more powerful+mature and the tooling makes better use of the types. If you’re looking for a more mature pulumi alternative, I think you gotta stay with terraform, but writing HCL boilerplate code is not exactly exciting and be warned that terraforms kubernetes support is actually way behind pulumi’s. Frankly speaking the terraform kubernetes provider in it’s current state is useless in practice as it doesn’t support k8s Deployments and a few other essentials. This issue contains some details about this: https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-kubernetes/issues/3#issuecomment-407118100 but the short gist is that HashiCorp apparently doesn’t have resources to maintain the k8s provider and they’re trying to hire someone to maintain it but until then you can’t expect a lot of progress.
b
Ah, very good to know about that, thank you. Right now we have a huge house-of-cards TF infra that I've inherited. I was looking at that terragrunt also, it seems to have some solutions for making the TF more DRY, right now we have separate .tf files for basically the same stuff in all regions. There are a couple modules in use, but the rest is 95% similar code everywhere with some global files that handle locals and shared config. It's unmanageable in this state, and very error-prone. I've used a tool in the past similar to scepter (but private inhouse) which is python+troposphere+cloudformation with stack/environment organization structure plus embedded deployer, diff/change auditing etc, so I know it's solid to write infra with a true programming language using modules and such. I'm trying to put together a POC for the team with the python (not super familiar with TS, but have done JS in past) so that might be a big ask for them to use TS, but our new k8s lead I'm going to have them watch the Pulumi k8s videos and gauge temp of interest there. I don't think using the TS SDK would be a deal breaker.
g
ok sounds good. As for TS: People are always hesitant to learn a new language. The thing is you need to make yourself and the team aware that TS is not really completely new language. It’s really just JavaScript with a few extras that you don’t even see in many TypeScript files. Many things you see in TypeScript files, like async functions, classes, module imports / exports via 
import .. from
, export, arrow functions etc. is just official JavaScript (its in the spec) that has been introduced in the JS language over the last couple of years and which is worth to learn anyways if you’re dealing somewhere with JS. When I first poached TS in my team some people were scared and argued that TypeScript is so different and “non-standard” compared to JS. I told and showed them then that almost all the code I’ve shown just uses standard modern JS syntax features that they should learn anyways about unless they’re just targeting IE10 …
b
the developers are using NodeJS, so they're probably definitely more familiar with the fancy side of JS than I am.. will mostly be me (infra) and our k8s engineer. But, I'm not that worried, tons of examples and help around the office 👍
👍 2
Hey @glamorous-printer-66548 if you're around tomorrow, would you mind if I asked you a couple quick questions on your TS configuration? I got my python POC working well, and I think we may be able to move forward, but I'm having the damndest time doing simple things with package installations into the TS version script.. so far I'm just trying to get in a yaml loader and a sprintf() type operator. In my VS code they're working, but when i run 
pulumi update
it's erroring with missing packages. I'd just like to make sure there's not something extra I need in my tsconfig.json or similar.
g
yeah sure. I’m usually just online in the afternoon and early evening though.
fyi, I’m not sure why you would wanna use a sprintf type operator. It’d just use JS template literals https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Template_literals and pulumi.log or console.log
b
cool, thanks, ill take a look.. basically i want to use that (but I'll check yours) and also like a yaml package.. I add
Copy code
"dependencies": {
        "@pulumi/azure": "latest",
        "@pulumi/pulumi": "latest",
        "@types/js-yaml": "latest"
    }
to the package.json, do a 
npm install
and then in my IDE it shows the package as available, but when i run via 
pulumi update
it says not found.. it's probably something stupid but so far kicking my butt

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/billeci-screenshots/index.ts__Untitled_Workspace_2018-10-08_19-04-05.png▾

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/billeci-screenshots/Development__Development__tmux_new_-s_pulumi__20567_2018-10-08_19-05-18.png▾

g
pro tip 1: don’t put 
latest
in your package.json. Simply run 
npm install <package_name>
which will generate an entry in your package.json with the latest version. I usually also set 
npm config set save-exact true
in my environment which will generate strict semver entries instead of a range like 
^<version>
. Also make sure to check-in the package-lock.json if one got generated.
pro tip 2: don’t use 
pulumi update
. Just use 
pulumi up
as seen in most examples. Using 
pulumi update
you will just confuse people like me that never have seen this command before 😄
and for your specific issue, it’s a bit hard to debug that issue just from your screenshot. Would need to know about your rough project structure. Concrete questions: 1. Where exactly is your package.json 2. In which working directory did you run 
npm install
3. Where is your Pulumi.yaml 4. what value is in the “main” field of your package.json 5. What is the content of your Pulumi.yaml 6. In which working directory did you execute pulumi up?
b
Copy code
#1 in the main root of the project
#2 from that folder
#3 same folder
#4 don't see a "main" (below)
#5 (below)
#6 same
Copy code
$ cat package.json 
{
    "name": "core-rg",
    "devDependencies": {
        "@types/node": "latest"
    },
    "dependencies": {
        "@pulumi/azure": "latest",
        "@pulumi/pulumi": "latest",
    }
}
Copy code
$ cat Pulumi.yaml 
name: core-rg
runtime: nodejs
description: A minimal Azure TypeScript Pulumi program
template:
  description: A minimal Azure TypeScript Pulumi program
  config:
    azure:environment:
      description: The Azure environment to use (`public`, `usgovernment`, `german`,
        `china`)
      default: public
Copy code
$ pwd
~/projects/pulumi/core-rg

$ ls -l
total 120
-rw-------   1 me  staff    309 Oct  8 16:06 Pulumi.yaml
-rw-------   1 me  staff   1467 Oct  8 19:21 index.ts
drwxr-xr-x  74 me  staff   2368 Oct  8 17:31 node_modules
-rw-r--r--   1 me  staff  42378 Oct  8 18:58 package-lock.json
-rw-------   1 me  staff    265 Oct  8 18:58 package.json
drwxr-xr-x   3 me  staff     96 Oct  8 16:52 src
-rw-------   1 me  staff    522 Oct  8 19:19 tsconfig.json
g
Generally speaking the module loading in node works quite differently compared to python. The short answer is that when you run node it looks in the current working directory for a folder named “node_modules” and attempts to find the requested module inside this one. If it cannot find the particular module it looks for a “node_modules” directory in the parent folder etc. (this goes on recursively). The algoirthm is described a bit more in detail here: https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_loading_from_node_modules_folders . Compared to python a big advantage is that you don’t normally need something like virtualenv to have project specific dependencies.
b
right, yea i get that, and i see the module inside there
g
have you even added 
js-yaml
as dependency?
i don’t see it in your package.json
b
yea, i did, i just did again as a test, it was gone in that one, here's what i just did
g
Note 
@types/js-yaml !== js-yaml
b
Copy code
$ cat package.json 
{
    "name": "core-rg",
    "devDependencies": {
        "@types/node": "latest"
    },
    "dependencies": {
        "@pulumi/azure": "latest",
        "@pulumi/pulumi": "latest",
        "@types/sprintf-js": "^1.1.0"
    }
}
g
the @types packages just contain typescript type definitions but not the actual module code.
b
ah
that may be a big bit i'm missing
ok, so if i want to use js-yaml in my code
i'd need to install @types/js-yaml and also js-yaml ?
that was it..
Copy code
Diagnostics:
  pulumi:pulumi:Stack: core-rg-core-rg-dev
    info: { greeting: 'hello', name: 'world' }
Copy code
import * as jsyaml from "js-yaml";

let doc = jsyaml.load('greeting: hello\nname: world');
console.log(doc)
$ npm install js-yaml --save
$ npm install @types/js-yaml --save
son of a gun
THANK YOU
g
Generally speaking in nodejs / npm world is like that: - some packages come out of the box with typescript definitions (for example that’s the case with all pulumi packages). When you look inside the node_modules directory of the pulumi packages you will see a bunch of 
.d.ts
files with contain the types). - some packages (for example lodash) don’t come with typescript type definitions out of the box, often because the original author doesn’t use typescript himself. What then happens is that often the typescript community writes seperate type definitions for those packages which are published with the prefix @types, e.g. @types/lodash. So in case of lodash the actual runtime code is in the package “lodash” but if you want better type checking and code completion you CAN (you don’t have to, your code will run nevertheless) include the community type definitions by adding @types/lodash in addition to your package.json
b
ok i came across this earlier trying to load packages, found someones def of their own .d.ts file, realized that was a type definition
just one of those things, I assumed that the @types/ definition was a revamped package for TS not just the definition
really all i needed to get started on my Python->TS conversion was ability to load the yaml and create some strings like I was doing in python
Copy code
rgname = '{}-{}-{}'.format(
            resource_type,
            env_id,
            region['id']
        )
past that, everything else is similar enough to the TS examples they have online
(i think)
g
k
b
I got the full python POC working, and showed it off some today, but the fact that the k8s implementation is also desired, and TS only.. I figured better to convert over to TS now at the beginning than deal with both SDKs later on
g
your code in JS would be
Copy code
rgname = `${resource_type}-${env_id}-${region.id}`;
b
yea with the ticks... lol @ slack
you don't use azure do you?
g
I find those python 
.format
things always so ugly to see 😄 . Fortunately we use python 3.6 internally which has support for f strings which is similar to JS template literals.
b
trying to find azure support is tough, ive posted on MSDN forum, reddit and azure-developer slack.. getting a weird issue trying to assign a user identity to a storage container, accounts and keyvaults work fine
g
no, we use GCP
many of the pulumi folks worked at Microsoft before, perhaps they can help you a bit 🙂
b
is there a better channel to dump random dev questions in?
g
idk, I guess if it’s more of a azure question than pulumi question you should probably look for some azure slack or so.
b
yea was bummed that the pulumi python SDK is on python 2.7 😕 , 3+ doesn't work, they use "basestring" and other removed constructs in their SDK code
yea I joined one today and posted there, it's a ghost town
😄 1
g
For GCP we actually have an account manager and an architect we e-meet every two weeks, much more engaging than our past with AWS.
b
that's great.. yea our turnover with AWS reps at my old job was crazy, and they never knew answers to anything we asked, they just tell us to call enterprise support
we have some GCP infra up, but dont believe it's been via anything but console entry
i just got dumped into this TF mountain and asked to start making changes to things (but there are 37 scaleset files) and trying to push it to a better direction
absolute last thing i want to do is go edit 50 files manually, i feel anything at this point should be a refactor to something better
i looked at terragrunt, but it sure seems to be AWS centric, not even clear if it works for azure yet
and, the infra as code is so much more appealing
g
are you locked-in on Azure?
b
sorta, we have major incentives to stay there
outside of "hard to move" or infra requires it
g
Terragrunt definately also works without AWS. We used (and still use) it since a couple of months, first with AWS and now with GCP. I guess it has some extra features for AWS but they don’t seem essential to me.
Concretely we use Terragrunt with the Terraform GCS backend (instead of S3 as in the terragrunt examples)
b
ok, yea i read some about how it doesnt have some magic to create new state files/storage accounts like AWS, but that it should work with other providers
I'm going to give pulumi a few more days.. I had to tell the boss that it relies on their cloud services also for deployment.. that didn't go over well. But I did mention the local state, which I hope he wouldn't require us to use
And, we don't use github, so I created a github org under my work email and used that to login to Pulumi.. I'll try to keep that under wraps for bit heh
g
yeah, terragrunt creates a bucket and dynamodb table for state locking automatically, with other backends like GCS you have to create those resources once manually, but not a big deal. With the GCS backend we don’t even need dynamodb or similar because unlike S3, GCS has strong consistency and hence can be used as lock by itself.
b
im not sure if azure has a locking resource, but they havent been using it if there is from what i can tell, but its normally only one operator running any deploy at a time
g
Yeah well I think in a couple of months pulumi will get support for blob storage like S3, GCS as remote backend (similar to terraform). There’s a couple of open issues for that, but it should just take a few brave community contributions to make that happen 🙂
as per terraforms docs, Azure storage has built-in locking capabilities like GCS: https://www.terraform.io/docs/backends/types/azurerm.html . Shame on S3 which doesn’t have it out of the box 😄
b
ah, good to know
alright, well i feel like i have a pretty good idea now of where i'm at with pulumi
probably should give terragrunt a bit more of a look also.. then pick one and get to it
one of the main reasons I started looking at pulumi as we're looking to implement a fairly dynamic user identity/role assignment type system based on a yaml configuration where we can specify machine roles, what they need access to etc
trying to do that in TF seemed daunting. I originally looked to building native TF out of python->json
the identities in azure (like iam accounts) are region based, so we need to create roles for about 10 diff machine types, each with different keyvault/storage access and then replicate those configs to 10~ regions
so that one region outage wont take down access (hopefully) to all machines looking to make oauth requests off those identities
g
I see. In GCP identities and lots of other things (e.g. VPC, storage buckets, load balancers) are global, so we don't have this problem fortunately 😂
b
yea coming from AWS, i've got about 6+ yrs exp there and a pro cert.. Azure has been.. interesting
having a machine come up and have credential-less access to a storage container is bleeding edge
they do a lot well, but their auth setup and identities compared to AWS IAM is not even close
thanks again for all your help, if I can ever help answer anything or if you need someone to bounce ideas off, it'd be my pleasure 👍
see ya later
g
hmm, I always found AWS a bit too complex (also wrt to IAM) and the quality of their hundreds of services is a bit of a hit-and-miss (littered with gotchas and weird limitations when you actually start using them). GCP is refreshingly simpler in many ways.
That GCP by default just reuses gsuite idendities for end users is really neat. Probably can be setup on AWS as well but never had the time to do so.
see ya
7 Views
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by