Is there a way to dynamically set the UI level for the msi that I am chaining to the main msi?
I want to use the same UI level as the main msi. If my main msi is running in silent mode (/qn), then I want the chained msi to run in the silent mode. If I am running main msi in full UI mode, then the chained msi should be run in the full UI mode. Is it possible to do this?
The chained msi's UI level is defined in the ISChainPackage table, in the Options Column. Is there a way to manipulate this in a Custom Action etc?
There are a couple options, neither of which are as clean as would be preferable. The first is to edit the property IS_CHAINER_POST_COMMANDLINE after the IsChainPackagePrepare custom action. I haven't explicitly tried this, but there's no reason it shouldn't work if modified correctly.
The other is to try to sneak in a command line parameter as a property. For example, add [CHAINUILEVEL] to the Install and Remove properties. Set CHAINUILEVEL to one of the /q_ values depending on your preference and actual UI level. I haven't tried this one either, but expect it can work (I'm less certain though).
It sounds like the ideal behavior may be for us to treat the drop down's values as a maximum, and override it automatically if the outer MSI is something lower. Does that sound good? If so I can submit a feature request for that.
It sounds like the ideal behavior may be for us to treat the drop down's values as a maximum, and override it automatically if the outer MSI is something lower. Does that sound good? If so I can submit a feature request for that.
That definitely sounds good to inherit the main MSI's level and override it in that case. Thanks for submitting this to dev team.
I dont know how this feature request process works, how will we know this is complete and how are we going to receive it?
Alright, I've submitted this under IOC-000078036. You can use this number to search the release notes of future releases, or ask our support staff, or even just ask about it here (with the standard caveat that this is not an official support forum, etc.).
In practice, though, this one is a small enough change I should be able to get a working prototype, and if you can accept it without it going through our QA process, can post an updated file for you to use with your current product.
Also I've gotten a little more review of how the command line parameters work again, and I don't think the second workaround I suggested can work (sneaking in a /q_ in the properties field), so without updated code from us, you would have to modify the property.
