Implement multi tag for build

[ulyssessouza]

Add multitag support for build

Note that with this implementation, building multiple times with different tags and building just one with multiple tags doesn't produce the same output. Check this:

- What I did
Added the option to use multiple tags to an app image

- How I did it
By turning the tag option into a list

- How to verify it

$ docker app build -t hello:v1 -t hello:v2 example/hello-world

- Description for the changelog
Add multitag support for build

- A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory)

[silvin-lubecki]

You have different IDs as we now insert the build time into the bundle.json... So the digest will differ each time you build.

[ulyssessouza]

@silvin-lubecki Yep! And I think that's strange/inconsistent.
Makes me feel that this kind of info would be better outside of the bundle.json.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #771 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #771   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    71.1%   71.1%           
======================================
  Files          67      67           
  Lines        3835    3835           
======================================
  Hits         2727    2727           
  Misses        756     756           
  Partials      352     352

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update d198096...09d931a. Read the comment docs.

[zappy-shu]

LGTM

[silvin-lubecki]

The text changed, is that ok?

[ulyssessouza]

This is something I would like to discuss.
The SHA that this message shows is not an image, but a bundle. This is exactly the same message shown by the "normal builder" and docker-compose to show the SHA of a docker image.
IMO, that's confusing to have this message building another thing and saying the same.

[silvin-lubecki]

Well, actually it's an image... Not a container image but still :)
Any opinion @ndeloof as you first wrote this log I guess?

[ndeloof]

"app image" is the recommended name for this (se naming doc)

[ndeloof]

Reason to show status this way is to "mimic the docker CLI" as our UX mantra :P

[ulyssessouza]

hmmm... Looks like now we have 3 alternatives:

• "Successfully built"
• "Successfully built app"
• "Successfully built app image"

What do you think @chris-crone @zappy-shu @aiordache ?

[chris-crone]

With BuildKit the final line is:

=> => writing image sha256:6f71466d421e3ab378cf91c03bfd4d00ecfc1ba7dc3a37ccb69c02b2ef0a2f6b

Without, it's:

Successfully built 965ea09ff2eb

I would say that we should use option 3 to make sure that it's clear.

[silvin-lubecki]

I think we are also missing a test here 😸

[ndeloof]

Reason to show status this way is to "mimic the docker CLI" as our UX mantra :P

[silvin-lubecki]

LGTM