Initially I wasn't 100% clear or decided on the send/recv semantics.
After some experimenting, I think this is much closer to what we want.
Nothing should break or regress here, this only enables more
possibilities.
Many years ago I built and demoed a prototype of a simple web ui with a
slider, and as you moved it left and right, it started up or shutdown
some number of virtual machines.
The webui was standalone code, but the rough idea of having events from
a high-level overview flow into mgmt, was what I wanted to test out. At
this stage, I didn't even have the language built yet. This prototype
helped convince me of the way a web ui would fit into everything.
Years later, I build an autogrouping prototype which looks quite similar
to what we have today. I recently picked it back up to polish it a bit
more. It's certainly not perfect, and might even be buggy, but it's
useful enough that it's worth sharing.
If I had more cycles, I'd probably consider removing the "store" mode,
and replace it with the normal "value" system, but we would need the
resource "mutate" API if we wanted this. This would allow us to directly
change the "value" field, without triggering a graph swap, which would
be a lot less clunky than the "store" situation.
Of course I'd love to see a GTK version of this concept, but I figured
it would be more practical to have a web ui over HTTP.
One notable missing feature, is that if the "web ui" changes (rather
than just a value changing) we need to offer to the user to reload it.
It currently doesn't get an event for that, and so don't confuse your
users. We also need to be better at validating "untrusted" input here.
There's also no major reason to use the "gin" framework, we should
probably redo this with the standard library alone, but it was easier
for me to push out something quick this way. We can optimize that later.
Lastly, this is all quite ugly since I'm not a very good web dev, so if
you want to make this polished, please do! The wasm code is also quite
terrible due to limitations in the compiler, and maybe one day when that
works better and doesn't constantly deadlock, we can improve it.
This adds initial symlink support to the file resource, and while it is
hopefully correct, there are always sneaky edge cases around symlinks
and security, so review and tests are highly encouraged!
These were really just stubs so that I could prove out the reactive
model very early, and I don't think they're really used anywhere.
I'm also not really using the yamlgraph frontend. If someone wants any
of that code, step up, or it will rot even more.
A subtlety about the engine is that while it guarantees CheckApply
happens in the listed edge-based dependency order, it doesn't stop
Watch from starting up in whatever order it wants to. As a result, we
can prematurely error since the docker service isn't running yet. It may
in fact be in the process of getting installed and started by mgmt
before we then try and use this resource! As a result, let it error once
for free and wait for CheckApply to get going before we start again.
Keep in mind, Watch has to use the .Running() method once to tell
CheckApply to do its initial event. So this concurrency is complex!
It's unclear if this is a bug in mgmt or not, but I'm leaning towards
not, particularly since there isn't an obvious way to fix it.
They made the assumption that there would be a based docker service
installed at Init which could not be guaranteed. Also use the internal
metaparameter timeout feature instead of private counters.
This adds some simplistic configuration management / provisioning
functionality to this virt:builder resource which makes it easier to
kick off special functionality that we might want to build.
It would be a likely mistake to create a self-referential frag, and mgmt
would spin forever updating the file... We probably don't want this, so
let's just catch this case in Validate.
Of course you could get around this with multiple files, and a fancier
search could statically check the graph, but the goal isn't to prevent
any bad code, since that's not likely to be possible.
Instead of constantly making these updates, let's just remove the year
since things are stored in git anyways, and this is not an actual modern
legal risk anymore.
I regressed here when patching this. Here's the fix. Would be beautiful
to have hardware to run end-to-end testing on. If you want to sponsor
this, please let me know!
