feat: add support for environment variables in Cloud Functions

[nethunter]

Add support for passing environment variables to a function

[tume]

Have been using this with couple of my functions and seems to work as expected....would be nice to see this get merged

[vertexclique]

Can we merge this? If this is done?

[nethunter]

@vertexclique I've been using it for a couple of weeks now, with no problems. As far as I'm concerned, it definitely can be merged.

[vertexclique]

Let's do that then. Want to use it also from the upstream.

[tmilewski]

I'm using this, without issue, as well.

[vertexclique]

@pmuens Do you have time to take a look? Would be really nice to merge this and roll a patch.

[cirdes]

It would be nice to have this

[armand1m]

would love to see this merged 💖

[armand1m]

This is concise and simple, just loved how simple it seems to contribute to this project. Lovely.

[armand1m]

cc @pmuens

I am having to come up with some hacks in order to have a proper cloud function configured by the CI pipelines due to this, is there anything I can do to help getting this merged?

[nethunter]

@armand1m why hacks? I use this in CI, just replace in your package.json the dependency on Google Cloud Functions with this one:

"serverless-google-cloudfunctions": "https://github.com/nethunter/serverless-google-cloudfunctions/tarball/master

[armand1m]

@nethunter this itself is already quite of a hack 😛 but I'll probably use this workaround by now.

[markmssd]

Nice PR!

I've done a little change to it, to allow merging the provider environments with the function ones:

      funcTemplate.properties.environmentVariables = _.merge(
        _.get(this, 'serverless.service.provider.environment'),
        funcObject.environment,
      );

      if (!_.size(funcTemplate.properties.environmentVariables)) {
        delete funcTemplate.properties.environmentVariables;
      }

👍

[nethunter]

@markmssd cool, I have added your change to my code, and added another unit test for this case as well

[cirdes]

I do agree with @armand1m , using the repo from another Github is quite a hack or at least far from ideal. I had to bundle the support for environment variables and distinct entryPoint #97 to be able to set more than one deployment stage. And its seems that there is a lot of people doing the same. I think that Google Cloud is nicer and more productive than AWS. It would be nice to see the serverless framework evolve the GCP support.

[nethunter]

@cirdes well, I would love to have this merged, but the last official merge to this repository was 1.5 months ago. It seems that the maintainers of this repo aren't very active. At this point, I'm thinking of taking over maintaining this repo, and just making a repo with all the open pull requests inside...

[armand1m]

HEY PLEASE MERGE THIS

cc @pmuens

PLEASE I BEG YOU

[kjanoudi]

Merge this pleaseeeee

[armand1m]

pls PLZZZZZZZZZZZ

[pmuens]

Hey @nethunter thank you very much for working on this and sorry for the slow response on our end 👍 💯

This looks great! LGTM

Merging...

[nethunter]

@pmuens cool, thanks!

[pmuens]

Alright. I just published the new version (v2.1.0) which includes this feature to npm (--> https://www.npmjs.com/package/serverless-google-cloudfunctions).

Thanks again for jumping in here @nethunter 🎉

/cc @kjanoudi @armand1m @cirdes @markmssd @vertexclique @tmilewski @tume

[cirdes]

@pmuens, thanks so much for merging this PR. Unfortunately, I still can't go back to this repository because of lack of stage support. Functions in dev and prod have the same name and are overriding each other.

Based on #97 I had done my own implementation. At least we are halfway to go!