juju export-bundle --include-charm-defaults fails with "ERROR charm "cs:<charm name>" not found (not found)"

[Andrea Ieri]

If I export a bundle and include defaults, I get the following error (after what seems like a timeout):

$ juju export-bundle -m lma --include-charm-defaults --debug > /tmp/bundle.yaml
22:21:50 INFO juju.cmd supercommand.go:56 running juju [2.9.27 0 acb32588d1752e813b36e3491f0eb44cde7c0684 gc go1.17.8]
22:21:50 DEBUG juju.cmd supercommand.go:57 args: []string{"/snap/juju/18573/bin/juju", "export-bundle", "-m", "lma", "--include-charm-defaults", "--debug"}
22:21:50 INFO juju.juju api.go:78 connecting to API addresses: [10.216.241.202:17070 10.216.241.203:17070 10.216.241.204:17070]
22:21:50 DEBUG juju.api apiclient.go:1153 successfully dialed "wss://10.216.241.203:17070/model/42843009-6c76-47cd-892e-3aa4df4e3399/api"
22:21:50 INFO juju.api apiclient.go:688 connection established to "wss://10.216.241.203:17070/model/42843009-6c76-47cd-892e-3aa4df4e3399/api"
22:21:53 DEBUG juju.api monitor.go:35 RPC connection died
ERROR charm "cs:canonical-livepatch" not found (not found)
22:21:53 DEBUG cmd supercommand.go:537 error stack:
charm "cs:canonical-livepatch" not found (not found)
/build/snapcraft-juju-35d6cf/parts/juju/src/rpc/client.go:178:
/build/snapcraft-juju-35d6cf/parts/juju/src/api/apiclient.go:1252:
/build/snapcraft-juju-35d6cf/parts/juju/src/api/client/bundle/client.go:73:

It appears as if the controller is trying to query charmhub for the defaults of an unqualified charmstore charm, but the error message is very opaque.

Note:
* the charm name is irrelevant, canonical-livepatch is the first app in my model alphabetically
* the export succeeds if I don't include defaults
* the export succeeds on 2.9.16, even with defaults, but not on 2.9.22

[Heather Lanigan (hmlanigan)]

This is specific to models with charmstore charms deployed. Local and charmhub charms do not exhibit this issue.

[Canonical Juju QA Bot (juju-qa-bot)]

This Medium-priority bug has not been updated in 60 days, so we're marking it Low importance. If you believe this is incorrect, please update the importance.