charmcraft pack outputs different charm filenames depending on base/platform specification in charmcraft.yaml

[PietroPasotti]

Bug Description

depending on whether you use the base: or the platforms: syntax in charmcraft.yaml, charmcraft will either create a [email protected], or a foo-ubuntu-22.04.charm file.

I believe the created files should have the same name regardless of the syntax that was used to specify them.

To Reproduce

charmcraft pack in https://github.com/canonical/parca-scrape-target-operator
charmcraft pack in https://github.com/canonical/parca-k8s-operator

Environment

candidate snap

charmcraft.yaml

n/a

Relevant log output

n/a

[carlcsaposs-canonical]

I think this could cause issues if you have multiple platforms built on the same base (e.g. to build two different "variants" of a charm [one with open source components & one with enterprise components]—implemented with different keys in platforms but same build-on and build-for), but not sure if charmcraft is supporting that use case

[carlcsaposs-canonical]

@PietroPasotti to clarify, is the difference when using base vs platforms or when using bases vs platforms?

[lengau]

Hi Pietro! Could you give me an example of the exact bases and platforms entries where this occurs? This is probably a side-effect of the multi-base platforms work (in which case the naming on the platforms syntax probably changed between 3.2 and 3.3).

[lengau]

FWIW, when using the platforms syntax, Charmcraft should add exactly the platform name to your filename, so if you set the platform name to ubuntu-22.04 it should output foo-ubuuntu-22.04.charm, whereas if you set it to [email protected] it should output [email protected]. This might be an issue with the multi-base platforms work if we're requiring the platforms to have specific names.

[PietroPasotti]

bases:
  - build-on:
      - name: "ubuntu"
        channel: "22.04"
    run-on:
      - name: "ubuntu"
        channel: "22.04"

vs

platforms:
  [email protected]:amd64:
  [email protected]:amd64:

[mr-cal]

I wonder if we should modify the bases->platforms conversion to match the shorthand multi-base syntax.

[lengau]

I think this might be working as intended. We don't want to change the bases -> platforms conversion because that's intentionally kept the same from charmcraft 2.x, but the following platforms entry should provide the same output:

platforms:
  ubuntu-24.04-amd64:
    build-on: [[email protected]:amd64]
    build-for: [[email protected]:amd64]
  ubuntu-22.04-amd64:
    build-on: [[email protected]:amd64]
    build-for: [[email protected]:amd64]

Not sure if the current implementation accepts that input though. If it doesn't, it probably should.

[PietroPasotti]

What do you mean with "it might be working as intended"?
Are you saying that my choice of one of N equivalent ways of declaring metadata are meant to determine the name of the output package?