Packages.config should include all options (including ignorechecksums)

[cori]

What You Are Seeing?

cinst on command-line using a .config file disregards ignorechecksum for specific packages.

What is Expected?

an entry in a .config file that includes `ignorechecksums="true" or another of the aliases from https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/wiki/CommandsInstall#options-and-switches should honor the ignorechecksums directive and allow, for that specific package,an installer that fails the checksums verification to be installed.

How Did You Get This To Happen? (Steps to Reproduce)

ran cinst rt.config -y using the attached rt.config.txt file. rt.config.txt

Output Log

chocolatey.log: https://gist.github.com/cori/01ff60e1638b75f38a25cbe41e7a0a16 choco.summary.log: https://gist.github.com/cori/b51791c5e22e19180d1e31e0eee717f1

[cori]

On a side note, running cinst rt.config -y --ignore-checksums with a .config file with checksum-failing packages does enable them to be installed, but in a scripted install environment that's unsatisfactory - I need to be able to control when to ignore checksums on a package-by-package basis so that I'm only ignoring them in cases that I've investigated, not for all the packages I'm installing arbitrarily,which would be pretty insecure.

[cori]

I guess I wouldn't have thought of this as an enhancement, but maybe the problem is that https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/wiki/CommandsInstall#packagesconfig doesn't call out which options work in a .config file and which ones don't - without some clarity there it seems like a sensible assumption that all of the options listed in the following section should be expected to work as advertised.

Obviously, though, you need to manage your workload as you see fit. Thanks for the swift attention.

[ferventcoder]

@cori As I mentioned over in the disqus notes, I think this should include all options that can be passed.

[ferventcoder]

I guess I wouldn't have thought of this as an enhancement

@cori I could go either way. Unexpected behavior could make it a bug, but as we did not add that functionality yet I think of it as an enhancement. Forgotten functionality could make it a bug. Like I said, I could go either way. 👍

[cori]

don't see a note on the disqus thread, but probably more important to get it here!

[ferventcoder]

yes, more important to get it here. Perhaps it wasn't on disqus. Where did we talk about this already?

[cori]

Found it - you replied to a stackoverflow comment: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34106680/how-to-use-custom-parameters-in-chocolatey-config-file/34111537?noredirect=1#comment64776855_34111537

[ferventcoder]

Would be nice to include options that come in from business editions as well here.

[lackovic]

Is there a way to ignore the checksum in the config file?

I checked the documentation and the StackOverflow thread but didn't find an answer to this.

I did a few experiments using packageParameters:

• packageParameters="IgnoreChecksum"
• packageParameters="/IgnoreChecksum"
• packageParameters="--ignorechecksum"

also tried with:

• ignoreChecksum="true"

but none of them worked.

[gep13]

@TheCakeIsNaOH would you be able to break this out into a new issue:

Would be nice to include options that come in from business editions as well here.

This doesn't belong as part of this issue, but we should likely do this at some point.

[TheCakeIsNaOH]

@gep13 added an issue here: https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey-licensed-issues/issues/317

[TheCakeIsNaOH]

@AdmiringWorm this still needs documentation. See https://github.com/chocolatey/docs/issues/403

[AdmiringWorm]

:tada: This issue has been resolved in version 1.2.0 :tada:

The release is available on:

• Chocolatey Community Repository Package
• Docker Hub
• GitHub Release
• NuGet Package

Your GitReleaseManager bot :package::rocket: