confusing behavior att init --contract

[migmartri]

when you run for example chainloop att init --workflow my-wf --contract my-contract ... what happens is

1 - a new workflow called my-wf is created (if it doesn't exist) associated with the contract my-contract
2 - a new run is performed

This means that if you after the first run, you provide another contract name chainloop att init --workflow my-wf --contract contract-2, the first contract (my-contract will be used, in other words, the provided contract-2 will be ignored, which was reported as unexpected behavior

[migmartri]

from top of my head we have two options once you run att init after the workflow was created

1 - if the contract you provide with the flag --contract is different than the one from the existing workflow fail the attestation telling the user to change it or
2 - if you provide --contract, make sure to swap it if needed.

I am leaning towards 2, wdyt @jiparis @javirln

[javirln]

I would say option 2 is more user friendly as long as we always inform the end user about that swap!

[jiparis]

2. is too much a side effect in my opinion. Could we just warn the user that --contract will be ignored if the workflow already exists? Another option is to change the option to something more meaningful for this specific case, like --initial-contract or similar