Print message when install technology is different in upgrade scenarios

[msftrubengu]

• Have you signed the Contributor License Agreement?
• Are you working against an Issue?

It is possible that the winget shows an available update via winget upgrade but doing winget upgrade <id> results in "No applicable update found." The details of why already shown in the logs.

Based on #1191, one of the common patterns we've seen is when the installed technology of the installed version is different to the update version. This change bubbles up the error to make it more visible to users.

The current recommendation is to uninstall and install the new version. In the future, #1640 will provide a way to do it automatically if desired.

Microsoft Reviewers: Open in CodeFlow

[yao-msft]

[JohnMcPMS]

Suggested change

	<value>At least a newer package was found but the install technology is different from the current version installed. Please uninstall the package and install a newer version.</value>
	<value>A newer version was found, but the install technology is different from the current version installed. Please uninstall the package and install the newer version.</value>
	``` #Resolved

[JohnMcPMS]

It is not clear to me when this would be used over the other string.

[msftrubengu]

UpgradeDifferentInstallTechnologyInNewerVersions is for winget upgrade <id> and we just look at all versions

UpgradeDifferentInstallTechnology is for specific version winget upgrade <id> -v 2.0

it is different codepaths and i thought it was weird showing "At least a newer package was found..." when a version is specified.

[JohnMcPMS]

My intention was that there would be a reason for every installer that was not applicable. #Resolved

[JohnMcPMS]

And ORing all of the reasons together makes for a very strange experience, breaking most of our ability to reason about what could be done to change things.

[JohnMcPMS]

We should run all of them and OR the results together. That way we can confidently say "This is not applicable for this specific reason" rather than telling them then finding out there are also others. #Resolved

[JohnMcPMS]

This should be "If there is at least one installer whose only reason is InstalledType". That way we know that in fact the only thing blocking us is the installed version. #Resolved

[github-actions]

@check-spelling-bot Report

Unrecognized words, please review:

• inapplicabilities

Previously acknowledged words that are now absent

activatable Globals mytool URIs Utils

To accept these unrecognized words as correct (and remove the previously acknowledged and now absent words), run the following commands

... in a clone of the git@github.com:msftrubengu/winget-cli.git repository
on the issue_1191 branch:

update_files() {
perl -e '
my @expect_files=qw('".github/actions/spelling/expect.txt"');
@ARGV=@expect_files;
my @stale=qw('"$patch_remove"');
my $re=join "|", @stale;
my $suffix=".".time();
my $previous="";
sub maybe_unlink { unlink($_[0]) if $_[0]; }
while (<>) {
if ($ARGV ne $old_argv) { maybe_unlink($previous); $previous="$ARGV$suffix"; rename($ARGV, $previous); open(ARGV_OUT, ">$ARGV"); select(ARGV_OUT); $old_argv = $ARGV; }
next if /^(?:$re)(?:(?:\r|\n)*$| .*)/; print;
}; maybe_unlink($previous);'
perl -e '
my $new_expect_file=".github/actions/spelling/expect.txt";
use File::Path qw(make_path);
use File::Basename qw(dirname);
make_path (dirname($new_expect_file));
open FILE, q{<}, $new_expect_file; chomp(my @words = <FILE>); close FILE;
my @add=qw('"$patch_add"');
my %items; @items{@words} = @words x (1); @items{@add} = @add x (1);
@words = sort {lc($a)."-".$a cmp lc($b)."-".$b} keys %items;
open FILE, q{>}, $new_expect_file; for my $word (@words) { print FILE "$word\n" if $word =~ /\w/; };
close FILE;
system("git", "add", $new_expect_file);
'
}

comment_json=$(mktemp)
curl -L -s -S \
  --header "Content-Type: application/json" \
  "https://api.github.com/repos/microsoft/winget-cli/issues/comments/954232646" > "$comment_json"
comment_body=$(mktemp)
jq -r .body < "$comment_json" > $comment_body
rm $comment_json

patch_remove=$(perl -ne 'next unless s{^</summary>(.*)</details>$}{$1}; print' < "$comment_body")
  

patch_add=$(perl -e '$/=undef;
$_=<>;
s{<details>.*}{}s;
s{^#.*}{};
s{\n##.*}{};
s{(?:^|\n)\s*\*}{}g;
s{\s+}{ }g;
print' < "$comment_body")
  
update_files
rm $comment_body
git add -u

[JohnMcPMS]

It probably doesn't matter right now, but it seems odd to not know which installer each goes with.