You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We use choco --version to parse the version of chocolatey that is running. However currently due to an expired licence a warning is also displayed that is stopping us from parsing the version. We then thought we could use the file version of the choco.exe itself but there was a mismatch.
choco -v
A license was found for a licensed version of Chocolatey, but is invalid:
Expiration Date : 00/00/000000:00:000.10.8
(gi C:\ProgramData\chocolatey\bin\choco.exe).versioninfo.fileversion
0.10.5.0
What is Expected?
a) the file version should match the version choco.exe claims to be
b) when running choco --version the only output should be the version. suppress all warnings and other output
Note the license isn't the issue here we are in the process of updating it but we now have to add a fix for this unexpected output. Not a huge issues nor a priority but it would be nice for future implementations to be able to trust this command.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When asking for the version of Chocolatey that is installed, the only
output should be is the version. This breaks things that would use that
information for version parsing.
What You Are Seeing?
We use choco --version to parse the version of chocolatey that is running. However currently due to an expired licence a warning is also displayed that is stopping us from parsing the version. We then thought we could use the file version of the choco.exe itself but there was a mismatch.
What is Expected?
a) the file version should match the version choco.exe claims to be
b) when running choco --version the only output should be the version. suppress all warnings and other output
Note the license isn't the issue here we are in the process of updating it but we now have to add a fix for this unexpected output. Not a huge issues nor a priority but it would be nice for future implementations to be able to trust this command.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: