(#3804, #1901) Add source locations to package information #3801

corbob · 2025-10-14T21:26:49Z

This is a draft PR while we work through some of the PR changes and to ensure we don't forget to rebase the commits before merging.

Description Of Changes

Add the source repository and deployment location to the stored Chocolatey package information, displaying it as part of choco info --local-only and choco list --verbose.

Motivation and Context

See #3804 and #1901

Testing

Run choco install <packageName>
Check $env:ChocolateyInstall/.chocolatey/<packageName>.<packageVersion>/.sourceInstalledFrom that it exists, and includes the repository that was used for installation.
Create a local Chocolatey package.
Run choco install <packageName> --source .
Check $env:ChocolateyInstall/.chocolatey/<packageName>.<packageVersion>/.sourceInstalledFrom that it exists, and includes the local path that was used for installation.
Run choco info <packageName> --local-only and ensure that both the deployment location and the source installed from location are listed.
Run choco list --verbose and ensure that both the deployment location and the source installed from location are listed.

Operating Systems Testing

Windows Server 2016
Windows Server 2019
Windows 11

Change Types Made

Bug fix (non-breaking change).
Feature / Enhancement (non-breaking change).
Breaking change (fix or feature that could cause existing functionality to change).
Documentation changes.
PowerShell code changes.

Change Checklist

Requires a change to the documentation.
Documentation has been updated.
Tests to cover my changes, have been added.
All new and existing tests passed?
PowerShell code changes: PowerShell v3 compatibility checked?

Related Issue

corbob · 2025-10-15T21:52:10Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure.app/domain/ChocolateyPackageInformation.cs

        public bool IsPinned { get; set; }
        public string ExtraInformation { get; set; }
        public string DeploymentLocation { get; set; }
+        public string PackageInstalledFrom {  get; set; }


Naming things is hard... Should this perhaps be SourceInstalledFrom? We can't necessarily use Uri as it may not be a Uri? Perhaps PackageOriginationSource?

@pauby can you provide any input here? This is with regard to capturing which specific source a package was downloaded and installed from. Thanks!

SourceInstalledFrom is clear what it contains, so I'd suggest that.

src/chocolatey/infrastructure.app/services/ChocolateyPackageInformationService.cs

corbob · 2025-10-15T21:54:50Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure/results/PackageResult.cs

+        {
+        }
+
+        public PackageResult(IPackageMetadata packageMetadata, IPackageSearchMetadata packageSearch, string installLocation, string source, string sourceUri) : this(packageMetadata.Id, packageMetadata.Version.ToNormalizedStringChecked(), installLocation)


@gep13 we had discussed making these optional, I found when I did that, I could no longer build CLE with these artifacts as it couldn't determine which method signature to use. Making them both mandatory solved that compile time issue for me. More than happy to be shown a better way to obsolete things here.

To keep things working with an optional parameter, I think you would need to do the following:

public PackageResult(IPackageMetadata packageMetadata, IPackageSearchMetadata packageSearch, string installLocation, string sourceUri, string source = null)

But since we are creating a new constructor, I don't see any harm in making them non optional.

@AdmiringWorm might have some thoughts on this as well, so happy to let him chime in here.

It would be could to add some documentation for this method as well, especially around why there are two parameters related to Source, i.e. one to capture all the sources used during the operation, and one for the source that was actually used to perform the operation.

Using an overload would be better than using an optional parameter.

Adding more optional parameters would require a new compilation of CLE for it to work against it.
An optional parameter is only optional during compilation, but during runtime it is still a required to be passed, so when CLE is compiled against this constructor with the optional parameter, it will pass along null as the value for the source parameter, but as this wouldn't be present without a recompile, then the method signature will be different than what CLE expects.

At least, those are my understandings.

It would be could to add some documentation for this method as well, especially around why there are two parameters related to Source, i.e. one to capture all the sources used during the operation, and one for the source that was actually used to perform the operation.

I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I have added some details to this particular overload.

gep13 · 2025-10-16T09:23:48Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure.app/domain/ChocolateyPackageInformation.cs

        public bool IsPinned { get; set; }
        public string ExtraInformation { get; set; }
        public string DeploymentLocation { get; set; }
+        public string PackageInstalledFrom {  get; set; }


@pauby can you provide any input here? This is with regard to capturing which specific source a package was downloaded and installed from. Thanks!

gep13 · 2025-10-16T09:25:38Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure/results/PackageResult.cs

+        {
+        }
+
+        public PackageResult(IPackageMetadata packageMetadata, IPackageSearchMetadata packageSearch, string installLocation, string source, string sourceUri) : this(packageMetadata.Id, packageMetadata.Version.ToNormalizedStringChecked(), installLocation)


To keep things working with an optional parameter, I think you would need to do the following:

public PackageResult(IPackageMetadata packageMetadata, IPackageSearchMetadata packageSearch, string installLocation, string sourceUri, string source = null)

But since we are creating a new constructor, I don't see any harm in making them non optional.

@AdmiringWorm might have some thoughts on this as well, so happy to let him chime in here.

gep13 · 2025-10-16T09:26:13Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure/results/PackageResult.cs

            }

            Source = sources.FirstOrDefault(uri => uri.IsFile || uri.IsUnc).ToStringSafe();
+            SourceUri = sourceUri;


Depending on the naming that is decided for the above parameter, we might want to make this one more explicit as well.

Are you suggesting that we add a new public property called SourceInstalledFrom and use it instead of the existing SourceUri?

(for now I will proceed with that being the idea, we can adjust it easily enough if not...)

Hmm, that wasn't what I was suggesting no, as I hadn't noticed (or rather, I had forgotten that SourceUri was already a property on this class. I think what you have done here is fine, I would go one step further though and say that if SourceUri is not being used anywhere, we mark it as Obsolete, so that going forward, there is no ambiguity about what is going on with this class. Source will be used (when needed) to store all the sources that were available when the operation took place, and SourceInstalledFrom used to store where the package was actually installed from.

Thoughts?

gep13 · 2025-10-16T09:27:44Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure/results/PackageResult.cs

+        {
+        }
+
+        public PackageResult(IPackageMetadata packageMetadata, IPackageSearchMetadata packageSearch, string installLocation, string source, string sourceUri) : this(packageMetadata.Id, packageMetadata.Version.ToNormalizedStringChecked(), installLocation)


It would be could to add some documentation for this method as well, especially around why there are two parameters related to Source, i.e. one to capture all the sources used during the operation, and one for the source that was actually used to perform the operation.

This commit adds the source location for a package to the .chocolatey directory, and adds the printing of the location to the `choco list` verbose output (and also `choco info --local-only`).

This commit reverts c74a19c where we had reverted the initial work to display the deployment location. As we are releasing a new version of CLE that can take this newer version as a breaking change, we can add this functionality in there too.

vexx32 · 2025-10-16T21:10:06Z

From a functionality standpoint I'm happy to approve this. I'll leave the final approval on naming and such to Gary and Paul before we call it all good, though. :3

corbob · 2025-10-17T00:23:59Z

I noticed some missed renames after @vexx32 left their review. I've added one last commit, and run the Chocolatey Agent Test Kitchen suite here: https://sra-soteria-web.ch0.co/buildConfiguration/TestKitchen_ChocolateyAgent/38694. I will review the results in the morning.

gep13

This all looks good to me, just a couple minor nitpicks, and an overall suggestion on how to finish this off.

gep13 · 2025-10-17T06:15:10Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure.app/services/NugetService.cs

                ChocolateyPackageMetadata packageLocalMetadata;
                string packageInstallLocation = null;
+                string deploymentlocation = null;
+                string packageInstalledFrom = null;


Can we get this updated to the name that we went for?

gep13 · 2025-10-17T06:16:31Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure.app/services/NugetService.cs

                                    package.Description.EscapeCurlyBraces().Replace("\n    ", "\n").Replace("\n", "\n  "),
                                    !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(package.ReleaseNotes.ToStringSafe()) ? "{0} Release Notes: {1}".FormatWith(Environment.NewLine, package.ReleaseNotes.EscapeCurlyBraces().Replace("\n    ", "\n").Replace("\n", "\n  ")) : string.Empty,
+                                    !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(deploymentlocation) ? "{0} Deployed to: '{1}'".FormatWith(Environment.NewLine, deploymentlocation) :string.Empty,
+                                    !string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(packageInstalledFrom) ? "{0} Package Installed From: '{1}'".FormatWith(Environment.NewLine, packageInstalledFrom) : string.Empty,


Suggested change

!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(packageInstalledFrom) ? "{0} Package Installed From: '{1}'".FormatWith(Environment.NewLine, packageInstalledFrom) : string.Empty,

!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(packageInstalledFrom) ? "{0} Package installed from: '{1}'".FormatWith(Environment.NewLine, packageInstalledFrom) : string.Empty,

I don't "know" is this is right or not. Perhaps a final check from @pauby here?

gep13 · 2025-10-17T06:18:11Z

tests/pester-tests/commands/choco-info.Tests.ps1

+            $Output.ExitCode | Should -Be 0 -Because $Output.String
+        }
+
+        It "Should contain a summary" {


Is this a copy/pasta or intended?

It is a copy/pasta... But it could probably be clearer about what summary it's looking for...

gep13 · 2025-10-17T06:20:10Z

src/chocolatey/infrastructure/results/PackageResult.cs

+        /// <param name="packageMetadata"></param>
+        /// <param name="packageSearch"></param>
+        /// <param name="installLocation"></param>


I think we should fill these out while we are here as well.

This adds pester tests to ensure the deployment location and the source repository are correctly output when running `choco info --local-only`

This commit renames the SourceInstalledFrom variable to the decided variable name. This also removes the uses of the deprecated PackageResult constructor.

This commit adds documentation to the PackageResult class, and slightly adjusts the formatting of the constructors to make them clearer.

corbob force-pushed the list-source branch 3 times, most recently from 1239d46 to 644d0ba Compare October 15, 2025 21:08

corbob commented Oct 15, 2025

View reviewed changes

gep13 reviewed Oct 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

corbob added 2 commits October 16, 2025 10:39

(chocolatey#3804) Add source location to package information

522c706

This commit adds the source location for a package to the .chocolatey directory, and adds the printing of the location to the `choco list` verbose output (and also `choco info --local-only`).

corbob force-pushed the list-source branch from f235bb8 to a33d2bf Compare October 16, 2025 18:06

corbob changed the title ~~(WIP) Add source locations to package information~~ (#3804, #1901) Add source locations to package information Oct 16, 2025

vexx32 previously approved these changes Oct 16, 2025

View reviewed changes

corbob dismissed vexx32’s stale review via b273cbf October 17, 2025 00:18

gep13 requested changes Oct 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

corbob added 3 commits October 17, 2025 14:53

(chocolatey#1901,chocolatey#3804) Add pester tests for info output

59db2e9

This adds pester tests to ensure the deployment location and the source repository are correctly output when running `choco info --local-only`

(chocolatey#3804) Update source location variable name

bf50e4b

This commit renames the SourceInstalledFrom variable to the decided variable name. This also removes the uses of the deprecated PackageResult constructor.

(maint) Document and format for PackageResult

ad5a3d9

This commit adds documentation to the PackageResult class, and slightly adjusts the formatting of the constructors to make them clearer.

corbob force-pushed the list-source branch from b273cbf to ad5a3d9 Compare October 17, 2025 22:07

	!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(packageInstalledFrom) ? "{0} Package Installed From: '{1}'".FormatWith(Environment.NewLine, packageInstalledFrom) : string.Empty,
	!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(packageInstalledFrom) ? "{0} Package installed from: '{1}'".FormatWith(Environment.NewLine, packageInstalledFrom) : string.Empty,

(#3804, #1901) Add source locations to package information #3801

Are you sure you want to change the base?

(#3804, #1901) Add source locations to package information #3801

Uh oh!

Conversation

corbob commented Oct 14, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description Of Changes

Motivation and Context

Testing

Operating Systems Testing

Change Types Made

Change Checklist

Related Issue

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vexx32 commented Oct 16, 2025

Uh oh!

corbob commented Oct 17, 2025

Uh oh!

gep13 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

corbob commented Oct 14, 2025 •

edited

Loading