Skip to content
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

Reactive charms built with missing configs (config.yaml) from other layers #684

Open
3 tasks done
hloeung opened this issue Nov 14, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
3 tasks done

Comments

@hloeung
Copy link
Contributor

hloeung commented Nov 14, 2024

Checklist

  • Confirmed this is an issue with charm-tools, not charmstore-client
  • Provide versions of tools used
  • Described the feature or ways to replicate the issue

What version am I running?

I ran the following command: snap info charm and got the following ouput:

Installing build-snaps
found charm-tools 3.0.7 (+git-17-0c02af3)
Pulling charm
Building charm
found charm-tools 3.0.7 (+git-17-0c02af3)

I am using: Ubuntu Noble / 24.04

Issue/Feature

I expect/expected the following

Building a charm using Launchpad's charm recipes and an updated charmcraft.yaml with support for Noble. The charm build successfully but it seems to be experiencing issues with deployments.

From further investigation, it seems it's not including the config.yaml from the layers used. This is happening with both reactive charms:

https://code.launchpad.net/~hloeung/content-cache-charm/+git/content-cache-charm/+ref/noble - build logs - https://launchpadlibrarian.net/758442899/buildlog_charm_ubuntu_noble_amd64_content-cache-noble_BUILDING.txt.gz
https://code.launchpad.net/~hloeung/autocert-charm/+git/autocert-charm/+ref/noble - build logs - https://launchpadlibrarian.net/751038229/buildlog_charm_ubuntu_noble_amd64_autocert-noble_BUILDING.txt.gz

What I got

A charm with the config.yaml missing various values from the configs in the other layers.

Current with latest charm-tools - https://pastebin.canonical.com/p/JbrMpJm9MQ/
Older - https://pastebin.canonical.com/p/kYdkTQcjRc/
(sorry, company private)

@hloeung
Copy link
Contributor Author

hloeung commented Nov 14, 2024

Might be similar to what's reported in #240 ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant