Support unified charmcraft.yaml

[syu-w]

Hi,

charmcraft is now moving to use unified charmcraft.yaml for all metadata.yaml, actions.yaml, and config.yaml as specs in ST087. While the old style is still supported and we doing backward compatibility for now, the unit tests for the charms are not happy because it try to read metadata.yaml but did not found the metadata it needs.

So this might be a good time for ops to first try to read charmcraft.yaml to get metadata.

An example of the new unified charmcraft.yaml
https://github.com/canonical/charmcraft/blob/main/tests/test_metafiles.py#L29

[benhoyt]

Thanks for the note @syu-w. If you or one of your team is able to help with a PR here, that would speed things up. Otherwise I'll try to get to this before the next release of ops (likely early August).

[syu-w]

@benhoyt I am going to see if I can create a PR next week.

[syu-w]

I have added a PR.

[benhoyt]

I'm reviewing #977 now, but just wondering about the spec for this. ST087 doesn't seem to mention actions.yaml and config.yaml at all. It looks like the things in actions.yaml are included under an actions key in charmcraft.yaml, and the options from config.yaml are included directly. Is that correct? Is there a spec / doc for that somewhere?

[jnsgruk]

@benhoyt the intention is this:

• You can still include a metadata.yaml, but fields that appear in both charmcraft.yaml and metadata.yaml will cause a build error
• You can still include a config.yaml seperately, or you can add options: in the charmcraft.yaml. This allows for splitting things out in charms with a lot of config options
• You can still include actions.yaml or you can add actions: to your charmcraft.yaml

[benhoyt]

Thanks for the PR, @syu-w -- merged!