Add launcher to the submission (bugfix)

[Hook25]

Description

In order to easily reproduce a test run, one has to know the launcher that created it. This PR changes the submission so that it also contains the launcher. This will make it way easier to spot issues with submissions directly on C3 and without relying on our infra (that may not be the submitter) to pick up the launcher.

TO REVIEW THE SCHEMA: note, I've reformatted the schema using jq but I did so in a separate commit, if you want to review my changes, do so excluding that commit for your own sanity's sake!

Resolved issues

Fixes: CHECKBOX-1773

Documentation

N/A

Tests

Submission.json
submission_2025-03-27T16.10.59.703034.json

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 50.31%. Comparing base (3dc0dc3) to head (88c1b08).
⚠️ Report is 156 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1826      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   50.17%   50.31%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files         380      380              
  Lines       40962    40997      +35     
  Branches     6883     6877       -6     
==========================================
+ Hits        20552    20628      +76     
+ Misses      19683    19634      -49     
- Partials      727      735       +8     

Flag	Coverage Δ
checkbox-ng	70.23% <100.00%> (+0.34%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[pieqq]

This modifies the submission format. Can you also modify the submission schema?

[fernando79513]

I'll be damned if checkbox is not convoluted.
I was going to ask you to add some tests for the CheckboxINIParser, and I saw the ones from ConfigParser and then got caught into that mess.

Since you are only using the ''to_dict" method here. I think it is okay to skip the unit tests, but I'll still add something like this in test_config.py

    @patch("os.path.isfile", return_value=True)
    def test_ini_parser(self, _):

        ini_data = """
        [launcher]
        launcher_version = 1
        stock_reports = submission_files, text
        [test plan]
        unit = 2021.com.canonical.certification::pass-and-fail
        forced = yes
        """
        parser = CheckboxINIParser()
        parser.read_string(ini_data)
        dict_data = parser.to_dict()

        launcher = dict_data.get("launcher")
        self.assertEqual(launcher.get("launcher_version"), "1")
        self.assertEqual(
            launcher.get("stock_reports"), "submission_files, text"
        )
        test_plan = dict_data.get("test plan")
        self.assertEqual(
            test_plan.get("unit"),
            "2021.com.canonical.certification::pass-and-fail",
        )
        self.assertEqual(test_plan.get("forced"), "yes")

[fernando79513]

LGTM +1!