-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 905
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
When selecting not to install an update, chocolatey asks for a rollback #188
Comments
if you control-c at the menu, it has already downloaded the spec, and created the dir in /lib so it thinks that the package is installed on a subsequent rerun. |
In the example outlined in the original post, there was no ctrl + c but I guess it could lead to the same result. A potential "simple" solution (just throwing ideas) would be to flag a package as "not successfully installed" until it has ben installed completely, so that after the operation has completed unsuccessfully, the package is simply removed. If what you just said is true (I don't actually know :)) |
As an implementation detail I would suggest having flag files in the package folder rather than using the folder as a marker. This would allow chocolatey to sense that there have been failed installs and clean them up or even show alerts in some type of audit mode or in "choco list -lo" Options for install status could be "user aborted", "incomplete", "error". Could start the install with "installstatus.incomplete" and at the end change to "installstatus.installed" If other handled conditions arise, leave off with that status "installstatus.userabort". In the case of "installstatus.error" - maybe the file could contain the error text. Then it could be programmatically retreived or viewed by the automation engineer directly. Just ideas - I'm sure you guys will figure out a great way to handle it. |
A user cancelled script will auto rollback - #985 |
Forgot this was here when I put in the work for the 0.10.2 release |
If I decide not to continue with the uninstall by refusing to run the script, I'm expecting not to receive a request to rollback. Here is an example:
Note that the rollback message itself could also be improved :)
For more details: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/chocolatey/UVncL7PxXRg
(Moved from chocolatey-archive/chocolatey#696)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: