Programmer Humor

21016 readers

2526 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1572

Like programming in bash (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

184 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I honestly think autocorrecting your scripts would do more harm than good. ShellCheck tells you about potential issues, but It's up to you to determine the correct behavior.

For example, how could it know whether cat $foo should be cat "$foo", or whether the script actually relies on word splitting? It's possible that $foo intentionally contains multiple paths.

Maybe there are autofixable errors I'm not thinking of.

FYI, it's possible to gradually adopt ShellCheck by setting --severity=error and working your way down to warnings and so on. Alternatively, you can add one-off #shellcheck ignore SC1234 comments before offending lines to silence warnings.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 22 hours ago

For example, how could it know whether cat $foo should be cat "$foo", or whether the script actually relies on word splitting? It's possible that $foo intentionally contains multiple paths.

Last time I used ShellCheck (yesterday funnily enough) I had written ports+=($(get_elixir_ports)) to split the input since get_elixir_ports returns a string of space separated ports. It worked exactly as intended, but ShellCheck still recommended to make the splitting explicit rather than implicit.

The ShellCheck docs recommended

IFS=" " read -r -a elixir_ports <<< "(get_elixir_ports)"
ports+=("${elixir_ports[@]}")