Closed SeanKilleen closed 2 years ago
I've seen it once, I think, out of several tens of installs, so it may be hard to reproduce. But I have an idea for a mitigation and I might implement something over the weekend.
Just had this occur on a couple of machines when running choco upgrade visualstudio2022professional
to v117.1.6.0.
Should I retry after upgrading chocolatey-visualstudio.extension to 1.10.1?
@jberezanski if there any logs which could assist in investigation, happy to upload?
It's re-occurring on at least one machine, so could re-run upgrade with debug on?
# original installation arguments
choco upgrade visualstudio2022professional --packageparameters '--quiet --includeOptional' --ignorerememberedargs --execution-timeout=14400
@OraDotNetDev Yes, please try after upgrading the extension. The newest VS 2022 packages already depend on it, but they are still in moderation.
The root cause is that the latest versions of Visual Studio Installer started producing files with the "Hidden" attribute set, which Remove-Item refuses to delete without -Force.
Hi Jakub, thanks very much for your speedy response on this 🥇
After installing the latest version of the chocolatey-visualstudio.extension release (1.10.2) Visual Studio now upgrades successfully.
Glad to hear it!
Meanwhile, the updated VS 2022 packages have encountered issues in moderation - apparently, the VS 2022 Installer has started using operating system functionality not available on Server 2012 R2 (the OS the Chocolatey Package Verifier is currently based on) and the packages now fail to install on 2012 R2, so they fail the verification step of moderation. (To be fair, the official system requirements of VS 2022 do say that only Server 2016+ is supported, but it worked on older OS until now.) I need to ask for moderation exemptions, so there may be a delay.
All packages have passed moderation now.
Versions:
I tried:
Output:
I'm using Windows Defender, so I added an exemption for
C:\Users\SeanK\AppData\Local\Microsoft\VisualStudio\Packages\_Channels
and disabled/re-enabled scanning. The same issue persisted. So I don't think it's an AV issue in this case.