Hm. The aws get<whatever> functions are pretty useless given that Pulumi adds an identifying tag to the names. However… is there a way of programmatically getting that tag? If so, I could just add it to the name and suddenly it would mainly work again. I mean, assume I’m looking for a lambda named “foobar”, I could run aws.lambda.getFunction({ functionName: “foobar” + this.getpulumiaddedsuffix()“}) and that would work! Hmmm… trying to find docs how to access a stack programmatically, but… is there an api at all for this?

Hi @colossal-alarm-90650. You still have the same or similar problem as last week? When you want to avoid the suffix in the name, then you could set the

name

in the resource argument. The field is sometimes called differently, though. E.g.

bucket

for an S3-bucket. Maybe that helps here. However, perhaps @broad-dog-22463 could help here 🙂

Oh I figured that one out. No, I am trying to eat the cake AND keep it.

You already created an issue in

pulumi-aws

?

Nope. If it’s not a bug, it’s not an issue. If there is a workable way to do this I want to find that out. I suppose you’re saying it isn’t possible? Stacks cannot be accessed programmatically?

If the

.get()

functions don’t offer you to get by tag, then I suppose it’s not possible, yet. With accessing stacks you mean accessing the `output`s of a stack? Sure, that’s possible with the

StackReference

. Didn’t try it for myself, yet. Programmatically only depends on how you name your stacks, AFAIK.

Well… I can get the name of the current stack with “getStack”. What I need then is the actual content as I would get with the cli “pulumi stack export” which I then could loop through looking for the resource in question….

Oh no, programmatically “sniffing” through the raw stack isn’t supported. And that’s intended for good reason. So: Why not using `StackReference`s? See inter-stack dependencies.

Hm. At first look that says nothing about how to get a reference to a name-obfuscated object… it’s about “outputs” of which none seems to be relevant (or defined, maybe I can do so somehow?), but… I’ll reread, thanks. As for the “good reason”, it fails me honestly?

You can

export const bucketID = bucket.id

& then

StackReference

that in the other project. “good reason”: See the raw stack like a database. It shouldn’t be touched nor accessed directly. Only from the program knowing about its internal structure. I.e. Pulumi itself.

Thanks! I do like the python approach though - everything is touchable but if you get burned don’t blame anyone but yourself.

If you’re working in the context of the same pulumi program, you shouldn’t need

.get

for resources you created in that program.

Assume the resources are not created by me, that someone else, some time, created them and I have no control of their stacks or code. That means they must be treated as “already there”.

Nope, that’s definitely not the intention. But, within a large organization, there’s nothing stopping you from referencing the stacks of some other team.