| Message ID | 20240405090052.375599-1-npiggin@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | add shellcheck support | expand |
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:00:32PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > I foolishly promised Andrew I would look into shellcheck, so here > it is. Thanks! I hope you only felt foolish since it was recently April Fool's day, though. > > https://gitlab.com/npiggin/kvm-unit-tests/-/tree/powerpc?ref_type=heads > > This is on top of the "v8 migration, powerpc improvements" series. For > now the patches are a bit raw but it does get down to zero[*] shellcheck > warnings while still passing gitlab CI. > > [*] Modulo the relatively few cases where they're disabled or > suppressed. > > I'd like comments about what should be enabled and disabled? There are > quite a lot of options. Lots of changes don't fix real bugs AFAIKS, so > there's some taste involved. Yes, Bash is like that. We should probably eventually have a Bash style guide as well as shellcheck and then tune shellcheck to the guide as best we can. > > Could possibly be a couple of bugs, including in s390x specific. Any > review of those to confirm or deny bug is appreciated. I haven't tried > to create reproducers for them. > > I added a quick comment on each one whether it looks like a bug or > harmless but I'm not a bash guru so could easily be wrong. I would > possibly pull any real bug fixes to the front of the series and describe > them as proper fix patches, and leave the other style / non-bugfixes in > the brief format. shellcheck has a very good wiki explaining each issue > so there is not much point in rehashing that in the changelog. > > One big thing kept disabled for now is the double-quoting to prevent > globbing and splitting warning that is disabled. That touches a lot of > code and we're very inconsistent about quoting variables today, but it's > not completely trivial because there are quite a lot of places that does > rely on splitting for invoking commands with arguments. That would need > some rework to avoid sprinkling a lot of warning suppressions around. > Possibly consistently using arrays for argument lists would be the best > solution? Yes, switching to arrays and using double-quoting would be good, but we can leave it for follow-on work after a first round of shellcheck integration. Thanks, drew > > Thanks, > Nick > > Nicholas Piggin (17): > Add initial shellcheck checking > shellcheck: Fix SC2223 > shellcheck: Fix SC2295 > shellcheck: Fix SC2094 > shellcheck: Fix SC2006 > shellcheck: Fix SC2155 > shellcheck: Fix SC2235 > shellcheck: Fix SC2119, SC2120 > shellcheck: Fix SC2143 > shellcheck: Fix SC2013 > shellcheck: Fix SC2145 > shellcheck: Fix SC2124 > shellcheck: Fix SC2294 > shellcheck: Fix SC2178 > shellcheck: Fix SC2048 > shellcheck: Fix SC2153 > shellcheck: Suppress various messages > > .shellcheckrc | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Makefile | 4 ++++ > README.md | 2 ++ > arm/efi/run | 4 ++-- > riscv/efi/run | 4 ++-- > run_tests.sh | 11 +++++---- > s390x/run | 8 +++---- > scripts/arch-run.bash | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > scripts/common.bash | 5 +++- > scripts/mkstandalone.sh | 4 +++- > scripts/runtime.bash | 14 +++++++---- > scripts/s390x/func.bash | 2 +- > 12 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 .shellcheckrc > > -- > 2.43.0 > > > -- > kvm-riscv mailing list > kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kvm-riscv
On Fri Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 PM AEST, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:00:32PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > I foolishly promised Andrew I would look into shellcheck, so here > > it is. > > Thanks! I hope you only felt foolish since it was recently April > Fool's day, though. Hah, no it was fine, it was a good idea and I've been mucking with a lot of the bash so, no worries. > > > > > https://gitlab.com/npiggin/kvm-unit-tests/-/tree/powerpc?ref_type=heads > > > > This is on top of the "v8 migration, powerpc improvements" series. For > > now the patches are a bit raw but it does get down to zero[*] shellcheck > > warnings while still passing gitlab CI. > > > > [*] Modulo the relatively few cases where they're disabled or > > suppressed. > > > > I'd like comments about what should be enabled and disabled? There are > > quite a lot of options. Lots of changes don't fix real bugs AFAIKS, so > > there's some taste involved. > > Yes, Bash is like that. We should probably eventually have a Bash style > guide as well as shellcheck and then tune shellcheck to the guide as > best we can. +1 > > > > > Could possibly be a couple of bugs, including in s390x specific. Any > > review of those to confirm or deny bug is appreciated. I haven't tried > > to create reproducers for them. > > > > I added a quick comment on each one whether it looks like a bug or > > harmless but I'm not a bash guru so could easily be wrong. I would > > possibly pull any real bug fixes to the front of the series and describe > > them as proper fix patches, and leave the other style / non-bugfixes in > > the brief format. shellcheck has a very good wiki explaining each issue > > so there is not much point in rehashing that in the changelog. > > > > One big thing kept disabled for now is the double-quoting to prevent > > globbing and splitting warning that is disabled. That touches a lot of > > code and we're very inconsistent about quoting variables today, but it's > > not completely trivial because there are quite a lot of places that does > > rely on splitting for invoking commands with arguments. That would need > > some rework to avoid sprinkling a lot of warning suppressions around. > > Possibly consistently using arrays for argument lists would be the best > > solution? > > Yes, switching to arrays and using double-quoting would be good, but we > can leave it for follow-on work after a first round of shellcheck > integration. Okay good, thanks for all the review on it. Thanks, Nick