So I have butted up against this issue a number of times, where IB tries to force as much of the configuration as possible into the before install phase, with little recourse, which while good in theory ends up being a problem in practice in the real world. A much larger than zero percent installs fail in new and spectacular ways that require some manual intervention, that then feeds back into the installer process. So I am asking to see if I have missed something that would make my life easier and the process more forgiving.
I already had to manually deal with a net framework install, where we have to manually unpack and run the framework installer, in case it needed to trigger a reboot (or even needed Windows Updates to be run before it would install), before asking the user to enter a bunch of information (usernames, proxy info, etc.) that they would have to enter again after the reboot.
I have a similar situation where installing on a machine, I need to, post install, start a service, and if that service starts, then ask a bunch of proxy related questions (more than IB allows, like PAC, WPAD, bypass lists, etc.) that we then send to the service. But because this might be installed on a domain that has group policies, etc. that prevent the service from immediately starting up, IB seemingly forces the user to enter information that might not be useful given the circumstances on the ground.
Surprisingly, insertAfter installation also doesn't do what would be expected....it runs AFTER the postInstallationActionList is run, so there is no way to show the parameter pages before that is run, at least in my experience.
I think I may be able to do what I want by making a functionDefinitionList, and calling it from the validation action list, or from post install action list if not running with the gui.
Is there a more direct way to accomplish what I am trying to do, using parameterlists/pages, or did I miss something? What is the use case for insertAfter installation not running before the postInstallation action list? If not, can we add some finer grain options to allow those kinds of workflows? (If so, correct me if I am wrong, certainly possible this works as needed, just I messed something up..)
Please sign in to leave a comment.