Update --dockerfile option description to state docker-compose is supported

[phil-d-wilson]

Change-type: patch
Signed-off-by: Phil Wilson [email protected]

[pdcastro]

Hmm.. Is that true though? :-) I was under the impression that the CLI did not allow specifying an alternative docker-compose file. Did you test, did it work? Here's what I just got:

$ balena push 192.168.0.37 -s ~/balena/other/simple_multicontainer --dockerfile my-docker-compose.yml
[Info]    Starting build on device 192.168.0.37
[Info]    No "docker-compose.yml" file found at "/Users/paulo/balena/other/simple_multicontainer"
[Info]    Creating default composition with source: "/Users/paulo/balena/other/simple_multicontainer"
...
Some services failed to build:
	main: (HTTP code 400) unexpected - Dockerfile parse error line 1: unknown instruction: VERSION:

[phil-d-wilson]

Yes, I did:

❯ balena push balena-dash --dockerfile .\docker-compose3.yml
Error: specified Dockerfile not found:
Specified dockerfile: "docker-compose3.yml"
Project's source folder: "."
Note that the specified Dockerfile path should be relative to the source folder.

ExpectedError: Error: specified Dockerfile not found:

⨯ phil@DESKTOP-7SPOFOE  ~\OneDrive\Documents\Source\balenaDash   BaseImageTest ≢ +3 ~1 -36 !                                                                                                        [13:33]
❯ balena push balena-dash --dockerfile .\docker-compose2.yml
- Packaging the project source...[Warn]    CRLF (Windows) line endings detected in file: C:\Users\phil\OneDrive\Documents\Source\balenaDash\.git\gitk.cache
- Uploading source package to balena cloud

I made a version 2 which worked, and tried specifying a file that did not exist (3).

[phil-d-wilson]

⨯ phil@DESKTOP-7SPOFOE  ~\OneDrive\Documents\Source\balenaDash   BaseImageTest ≢ +3 ~1 -36 !                                                                                                        [14:57]
❯ balena version
11.32.16

[phil-d-wilson]

Ah....no it doesn't. I still had my original docker-compose.yml in place, and it was picking up that. It just ignores the option if it finds your compose. :-(

That's a real shame, as I just told a user it worked. :-(

[pdcastro]

Even so, it's puzzling that it did not complain about the contents of the Dockerfile -- perhaps the original docker-compose.yml file was pointing to a different Dockerfile, or not requiring one (image instruction).
There is a CLI issue for alternative docker-compose file names to be implemented: #1142

Edit: it's not really that puzzling, thinking about it; :-) but the CLI should have complained that the --dockerfile option was being ignored.

[phil-d-wilson]

It definitely should complain.