Cancel installation when not elevated

[JasonCraneAdkins]

Checklist

• I have verified this is the correct repository for opening this issue.
• I have verified no other issues exist related to my request.

Is Your Feature Request Related To A Problem? Please describe.

Using Sudo to elevate command shell.
I'm using gsudo for a while to elevate the command shell, also with 24H2 windows has its own sudo feature.

Chocolatey usualy just get a error message and installs the software anyways.
FM: "Chocolatey detected you are not running from an elevated command shell"

This message is in a very unobtrusive color and does not need to be confirmed individually.

Describe The Solution. Why is it needed?

An Option to configure how to handle this situation.

There are two Option that would be viable.

1. Cancel the installation at all (Prevent any installation without elevated command shell)
2. Give a more Prominent /Error Color) Error Message that you have to agree to separately

Additional Context

No response

Related Issues

No response

[JPRuskin]

I'm unsure if we're seeing the same message!

I'm seeing a pretty prominently coloured message (no other messages are in the same colour, to my memory) that needs a separate agreement, and won't continue until you continue (or not).

Am I misinterpreting your request?

[JasonCraneAdkins]

with Appearance Campbell, it looks like this

But the main Topic is to completely abort the installation if there are no elevated permission

[pauby]

But the main Topic is to completely abort the installation if there are no elevated permission

That would be a user decision. This is why the message, and the prompt, are there.

[JasonCraneAdkins]

A user decision on this step only creates unnecessary problems.
At least an option to configure chocolatey to automatically cancel installations without elevation should be there.
And to be honest, that Option should be the standard

[pauby]

A user decision on this step only creates unnecessary problems.

Which problems does it create?

At least an option to configure chocolatey to automatically cancel installations without elevation should be there.

There are instances where Chocolatey CLI can be and are used without running in an elevated session. If there was an option, then users would have to turn it off and on again, if they were using it. Or we would need to implement options that you could add to the command line to switch it off for that one run. This is a lot of extra work for very little extra gain by a small handful of users.

Software should not always make guesses at what the user intended to do. If you are using any open-source tool, you need to ensure you are using it in the correct context.

And to be honest, that Option should be the standard

I disagree.

[JasonCraneAdkins]

A user decision on this step only creates unnecessary problems.

Which problems does it create?

Because this is so basic, to all the major OS out there, that you can't even call it a feature.

At least an option to configure chocolatey to automatically cancel installations without elevation should be there.

There are instances where Chocolatey CLI can be and are used without running in an elevated session. If there was an option, then users would have to turn it off and on again, if they were using it. Or we would need to implement options that you could add to the command line to switch it off for that one run. This is a lot of extra work for very little extra gain by a small handful of users.

Software should not always make guesses at what the user intended to do. If you are using any open-source tool, you need to ensure you are using it in the correct context.

Did you read about the Sudo command in the original post, that will become a standard feature for windows with 24H2

And to be honest, that Option should be the standard

I disagree.

Since the rest of the world thinks different to you, look at the first reply in this post for proof.
You disagreeing is very very questionable.

[pauby]

My intention was not to get into an argument or throw around personal attacks. My intention was to understand. To do that I asked questions.

Unfortunately the answers "this is so basic" and my disagreement with you is "very very questionable" don't help with that. I appreciate you don't agree with me but we can still be respectful. I tried to do that with my answers.

I have closed this issue and locked the thread as I don't want this escalating further.