node['chocolatey']['upgrade'] attribute not working

[tyrken]

I was hoping to use the node['chocolatey']['upgrade'] attribute to keep the underlying chocolatey version up to date, but it doesn't seem to work. I think this is due to how the LWRP behaves if the version field is left blank as it is in the chocolatey "chocolatey" resource at the end of the default recipe.

Looking at the code in providers/default.rb, which runs in response to that resource, "package_installed?" will be true as obviously chocolatey is already installed (by the install.ps1 boot-strapper). We don't specify a particular version, so "package_exists?" also returns true. Unfortunately "upgradeable?" takes the latter as gospel so assumes there's nothing to do.

Would you accept a PR to only use @current_resource.exists if the version is not blank?

[tyrken]

Whilst testing a fix for this, it seems chocolatey errors during the upgrade, even if it is OK afterwards. This is a problem that I can only seem to resolve by ignoring some return codes, which is not ideal...

[AnneTheAgile]

I wonder if with the latest release [1] which mentions fixing retcode issues, if this is still a problem?
https://github.com/chocolatey/chocolatey/wiki/ReleaseNotes

[vtintillier]

I have the same issue with cookbook version 0.3.0.
chocolatey 0.9.9.5 will not upgrade to 0.9.9.6.

From what I could debug, this is because in providers/default.rb/package_exists? method, we execute choco list -l -r chocolatey, but the chocolatey package itself is not returned by choco list command. So it always return false.

This is because the chocolatey package is not installed by the cookbook. I added chocolatey 'chocolatey' to my cookbook that include the chocolatey one, and I believe it will now work. To be verified once 0.9.9.7 is out.

Maybe the chocolatey cookbook should install the chocolatey package by default?