Support custom installer success exit codes #778
Conversation
| @@ -205,7 +206,7 @@ namespace AppInstaller::CLI::Workflow | |||
| context.Reporter.Warn() << "Installation abandoned" << std::endl; | |||
| AICLI_TERMINATE_CONTEXT(E_ABORT); | |||
| } | |||
| else if (installResult.value() != 0) | |||
| else if (installResult.value() != 0 && (std::find(successCodes.begin(), successCodes.end(), static_cast<int>(installResult.value())) == successCodes.end())) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
installResult.value() != 0 [](start = 17, length = 26)
Should 0 be included by default if codes are provided? What if 0 is a failure for some installer? I can understand the confusion that this could create, so it might be better to have a separate flag in the manifest for making 0 a failure value. #Resolved
| @@ -205,7 +206,7 @@ namespace AppInstaller::CLI::Workflow | |||
| context.Reporter.Warn() << "Installation abandoned" << std::endl; | |||
| AICLI_TERMINATE_CONTEXT(E_ABORT); | |||
| } | |||
| else if (installResult.value() != 0) | |||
| else if (installResult.value() != 0 && (std::find(successCodes.begin(), successCodes.end(), static_cast<int>(installResult.value())) == successCodes.end())) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
int [](start = 112, length = 3)
Should we just store the values in the manifest as DWORD then, since we will always compare against this value type? #Resolved
| @@ -205,7 +206,7 @@ namespace AppInstaller::CLI::Workflow | |||
| context.Reporter.Warn() << "Installation abandoned" << std::endl; | |||
| AICLI_TERMINATE_CONTEXT(E_ABORT); | |||
| } | |||
| else if (installResult.value() != 0) | |||
| else if (installResult.value() != 0 && (std::find(successCodes.begin(), successCodes.end(), static_cast<int>(installResult.value())) == successCodes.end())) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
successCodes [](start = 58, length = 12)
I think we are making a problem for ourselves later if we simply add this support without a healthy set of defaults in place. If we take this as is, this is the problem I imagine:
- Installer always return some value stating "reboot required for full functionality"
- Manifest author puts this value in success codes
- We add defaults later that make this value and others success for installation
- Installer starts returning one of the other values in some cases (maybe reboot required for any functionality)
- We fail the install because it isn't one of the values in the list
Then do we need to start treating the values in the manifest as additional ones, beyond 0 and our defaults? How could they indicate to us that our defaults are incorrect; that one of them means a failure?
If the manifest called these AdditionalSuccessCodes, we would probably be fine to treat 0 and any values we wanted (on a per-InstallerType basis) as success. But if it calls them InstallerSuccessCodes, it seems like this is the list, full stop. #Resolved
Also added tests for custom installer success codes.
Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow