Skip to content
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

win_chocolatey - Improve docs around install_args and package_params #89

Closed
vexx32 opened this issue Jul 5, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #124
Closed

win_chocolatey - Improve docs around install_args and package_params #89

vexx32 opened this issue Jul 5, 2022 · 0 comments · Fixed by #124
Assignees
Labels
5 - Released The issue has been resolved, and released to the public for consumption Documentation Issues for changes that only need to change documentation
Milestone

Comments

@vexx32
Copy link
Member

vexx32 commented Jul 5, 2022

Is Your Feature Request Related To A Problem? Please describe.

The documentation around install_args and package_params is not particularly clear as to when one should be used over the other.

install_args:

install_args:
description:
- Arguments to pass to the native installer.
- These are arguments that are passed directly to the installer the
Chocolatey package runs, this is generally an advanced option.
type: str
version_added: '0.2.1'

package_params:

package_params:
description:
- Parameters to pass to the package.
- These are parameters specific to the Chocolatey package and are generally
documented by the package itself.
- Before Ansible 2.7, this option was just I(params).
type: str
version_added: '0.2.1'
aliases: [ params ]

Describe The Solution. Why is it needed?

This came up in the Chocolatey Discord, a user was trying to use install_args to pass package parameters, as the documentation around these two options is not super clear.

Quote:

I wish that would be a bit clearer in the ansible docs, the phrase "Parameters to pass to the package." there was not for me clear as "MSI Properties" in the package page.

We should likely pull from Chocolatey's own command/option documentation and make the difference between these much more evident. Users should be able to infer from the options documentation that when passing parameters to a package install script, they should be using package_params, and when passing custom parameters to the underlying MSI/EXE/etc that a package might be running, they should be using install_args.

Additional Context.

N/A

Related Issues

N/A

@vexx32 vexx32 added Documentation Issues for changes that only need to change documentation Up For Grabs Issues that are available by the community to work on Good First Issue 0 - Backlog Issue is accepted, but is not ready to be worked on or not in current sprint labels Jul 5, 2022
@vexx32 vexx32 added this to the 1.5.0 milestone Jun 15, 2023
@vexx32 vexx32 self-assigned this Jun 16, 2023
@vexx32 vexx32 added 2 - Working A user or team member has started working on the issue and removed Up For Grabs Issues that are available by the community to work on 0 - Backlog Issue is accepted, but is not ready to be worked on or not in current sprint labels Jun 16, 2023
vexx32 added a commit to vexx32/chocolatey-ansible that referenced this issue Jun 16, 2023
@vexx32 vexx32 added 3 - Review Code has been added, and is available for review as a pull request and removed 2 - Working A user or team member has started working on the issue labels Jun 16, 2023
Windos added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 18, 2023
(#89, #113, #116) Improvements to collection documentation
@Windos Windos added 4 - Done Code has been added to the repository, and has been reviewed by a team member and removed 3 - Review Code has been added, and is available for review as a pull request labels Jun 20, 2023
@vexx32 vexx32 changed the title Improve docs around install_args and package_params win_chocolatey - Improve docs around install_args and package_params Jun 27, 2023
@vexx32 vexx32 added 5 - Released The issue has been resolved, and released to the public for consumption and removed 4 - Done Code has been added to the repository, and has been reviewed by a team member labels Jun 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
5 - Released The issue has been resolved, and released to the public for consumption Documentation Issues for changes that only need to change documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants