https://pulumi.com
Join Slack
This message was deleted.
# general
s
This message was deleted.
c
BTW, I've tried .apply(value => value) but no luck.
f
It’s easier to think of 
Output
types as promises, so the JSON.stringify should happen within some kind of apply. In this case, you probably want something like:
Copy code
pulumi.all([rdsInstance.username, rdsInstance.engine, ...]).apply(([username, engine, ...]) => JSON.stringify({ ... }))
so, the idea here is you need to have all those outputs available before you can apply them and construct your object — the return value of the above statement is going to be an 
Output<string>
which you can then pass as an argument to 
secretString
c
Thanks, I'll give that a try. The challenge I've found with this approach (unless I misunderstand) is that there's no "await" equivalent, meaning the "new aws.secretsmanager.SecretVersion" call has to also be inside the apply() stanza for operations to complete in order.
f
It depends on what you’re doing. For example, if there are side effects, then those would need to live w/in the 
apply
Resources should usually be able to take an 
Output
as an arg
So that’s why the 
new
doesn’t have to live w/in the 
apply
c
In this case, though, what I'm sending is a JSON.stringify() to the new SecretVersion. Pulumi won't see that as an Output, I don't expect.
f
It should — the result of an 
apply
is an Output<T> where T is the return type of the function you passed to 
apply
c
Hmmm. When I was testing, I put inline rdsInstance.username.apply(value => value) but the problem is I was trying to put it into a JSON object and then stringify it.
Thanks all the same for the suggestion on how to fix it!
f
It’s how you can do things like:
Copy code
const bucket = new aws.s3.Bucket("my-bucket", ...);
const cdn = new aws.cloudfront.Distribution("cdn", {
     ...
     loggingConfig: {
       bucket: bucket.bucketDomainName
       ...
     }
})
In this case, bucketDomainName is an 
Output
, which we’re now passing as an input to create the CDN
c
Yes, within a call to a new Pulumi object, it generally works. In the case of a new aws.secretsmanager.SecretVersion, however, the secretString object expects JSON.stringify(), not an Output object. Hence the problem in my case.
f
Since it’s expecting an 
Input<string>
and 
Output<string>
should work
If it’s not, can you please show me the error message? That would be a bug
c
What I'm reading is that secretString expects a string. Never mind. It's an Input<string>
f
So an 
Input<string>
really translates to either a string, a promise that returns a string, or an output that returns a string
I’m guessing you’ve already read https://www.pulumi.com/docs/intro/concepts/programming-model/#outputs — but in case you haven’t it clarifies some of this. We definitely need to make it clearer/easier to understand how this works.
c
I've read it but really struggled with it. I've had to essentially cast out of mind how I would do things with "await" since that doesn't exist.
I generally find trouble whenever I try to cross between pure Pulumi objects and traditional Typescript objects. I have to do it carefully.
f
Yeah, I hear you there. I think one way to think about it is that pretty much any input to a resource is fine as a promise, so in essence, all the inputs are awaitables
c
Except actually calling "await" doesn't actually wait on anything...
Back to what you were asking about reproducibility, the code I posted at the beginning of this thread was an example of where I expected Pulumi to wait on the resolution of the objects before populating.
f
right, but in this case, JSON.stringify doesn’t know how to deal w/ awaitables
c
So how would I get that information into the secretString without using apply?
f
in this case, i don’t think there’s an easy way except for apply
sorry, i wasn’t trying to imply there was
c
Ah!
I suppose it could work if it were possible to manually create an Output object. Is it?
f
I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean
c
Manually construct an Output object so Pulumi knows to wait on it?
And avoid having to call apply
f
But at the end of the day, the properties of that rdsInstance are 
Output<T>
c
It would be helpful if I could do the equivalent of new Output("https://"+Output<string>)
f
ah, that you can do
that’s 
pulumi.interpolate
From the page I linked earlier:
Copy code
// concat takes a list of args and concatenates all of them into a single output:
const url1: Output<string> = pulumi.concat("http://", hostname, ":", port, "/");
// interpolate takes a JavaScript "template literal" and expands outputs correctly:
const url2: Output<string> = pulumi.interpolate `http://${hostname}:${port}/`;
i haven’t tested this, but you should be able to also just 
pulumi.output({ … }).apply(JSON.stringify)
and pass that to the arg
you still have to use apply since you want to 
JSON.stringify
, but maybe you feel like that’ll look cleaner
so i guess in your case, 
pulumi.output(secretsToStore).apply(JSON.stringify)
hope that helps!
c
Thanks!
BTW, your suggestion works and is cleaner:
Copy code
let secretsToStore = {
                "username": rdsInstance.username,
                "password": password.result,
                "engine": rdsInstance.engine,
                "port": rdsInstance.port,
                "dbname": rdsInstance.name,
                "dbInstanceIdentifier": rdsInstance.identifier,
                "host": rdsInstance.address
            };

            const storedPassword = new aws.secretsmanager.SecretVersion(dbName + "_password", {
                secretId: rotation.id,
                secretString: pulumi.output(secretsToStore).apply(JSON.stringify)
            });
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by

Pulumi Community

No matter how you like to participate in developer communities, Pulumi wants to meet you there. If you want to meet other Pulumi users to share use-cases and best practices, contribute code or documentation, see us at an event, or just tell a story about something cool you did with Pulumi, you are part of our community.

Powered by