-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement a pulumi logs
command
#527
Comments
Note that we should make sure this covers many resource types, which I assume requires doubling down on the operations provider and component model work. As an example, I just spent a bunch of time debugging why a
In fact, arguably our use of abstraction makes this harder to debug, because the ECS constituent parts like task definitions and the like are completely foreign and only loosely connected to the source Pulumi program. |
Big 👍 - |
Definitely 👍 as well. This was one of my biggest pain points, as it was really hard to figure out which lambda went with which function in my code. |
should we try to get into 8.1 since the pain point is real?
…On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Donna Malayeri ***@***.***> wrote:
Definitely 👍 as well. This was one of my biggest pain points, as it was
really hard to figure out which lambda went with which function in my code.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#527 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH_5wmJ9XMUNYD6MCECAmdKmsMCaAWnIks5sz7YYgaJpZM4QSCFn>
.
|
I think we should take the time to get it right during M9. It would be a shame to do a half-hearted implementation that we need to reimplement and we now know what it takes to "do it right." |
This is the smallest possible thing that could work for both the local development case and the case where we are targeting the Pulumi Service. Pulling down the pulumiframework and component packages here is a bit of a feel bad, but we plan to rework the model soon enough to a provider model which will remove the need for us to hold on to this code (and will bring back the factoring where the CLI does not have baked in knowledge of the Pulumi Cloud Framework). Partially addresses #527
This is the smallest possible thing that could work for both the local development case and the case where we are targeting the Pulumi Service. Pulling down the pulumiframework and component packages here is a bit of a feel bad, but we plan to rework the model soon enough to a provider model which will remove the need for us to hold on to this code (and will bring back the factoring where the CLI does not have baked in knowledge of the Pulumi Cloud Framework). Fixes #527
This is the smallest possible thing that could work for both the local development case and the case where we are targeting the Pulumi Service. Pulling down the pulumiframework and component packages here is a bit of a feel bad, but we plan to rework the model soon enough to a provider model which will remove the need for us to hold on to this code (and will bring back the factoring where the CLI does not have baked in knowledge of the Pulumi Cloud Framework). Fixes #527
We used to have this in the old service CLI, but I think it got lost in translation. This is one of the more important/useful commands for inspecting a live, running stack. We should bring this back "in the right way", using the new
cloud.Backend
interface.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: