Defensive BASH programming • Hacker News Board

Re: Defensive BASH programming

#51

Post by dumol » Tue, Dec 15, 2015, 7:52 PM UTC

potatosareok2 wrote: post #41

Gnouc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you need non-standard feature `-print0` and `xargs -0` there. Better way should be `find ... -exec cmd {} +`.

Is there a place you can use `-exec cmd {} +` but not `print0`? My experience has been I can use both or I can use none (Solaris 10 boxes).

Systems with a non-GNU find, including the default one in Solaris 10 (I've just double-checked). Perhaps you were using the GNU find in Solaris?

By the way, there are systems where 'print0' is a recognized parameter for the default find, but not '+'. RHEL 4.x comes to mind.

Re: Defensive BASH programming

#52

Post by falsedan » Tue, Dec 15, 2015, 8:40 PM UTC

lisivka wrote: post #15

falsedan wrote: post #5

All these recommendation are excellent (except omitting the necessary obsessive quoting of all variables everywhere (just in case they contain a space). I've been enjoying BATS [0] for my bash testing. [1] https://github.com/sstephenson/bats

Why BATS? Why not something *unit-like? Example: https://github.com/vlisivka/bash-modules/blob/master/main/ba... .

TAP output is killer, plus I prefer to write my tests in bash -e, not Java thanks.

Re: Defensive BASH programming

#53

Post by potatosareok2 » Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 10:20 AM UTC

dumol wrote: post #51

potatosareok2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a place you can use `-exec cmd {} +` but not `print0`? My experience has been I can use both or I can use none (Solaris 10 boxes).

Systems with a non-GNU find, including the default one in Solaris 10 (I've just double-checked). Perhaps you were using the GNU find in Solaris? By the way, there are systems where 'print0' is a recognized parameter for the default find, but not '+'. RHEL 4.x comes to mind.

Sorry I think we're saying same thing. On systems with non-GNU find do either `-exec cmd {} +` or `print0` work? My exp was both did NOT work. So either both work or both don't.

But if I understand you correctly on RHEL 4.X `print0` works but `-exec cmd {} +` doesn't.

Which is to say I disagree with op that it's better to rely on `exec cmd {} +` when it seems you're more likely to have `print0 and xargs -0` then that.