On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM, David Korn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > how about using set -o pipefail ?
>
> I suspect that the user who posted the query wanted the pipeline to complete
> as soon as there was a failure.
yes, pretty much. the real task i'm looking at scripting is to query a
database for a list of input tuples to process, then pass them off to
another process to handle. they require a fair amount of
pre-processing before the other process can accept them, so i've
wrapped that in a shell function. the database tool is very bad at
reporting errors clearly (it has a tendency to print an error text to
stdout and then exit 0), so i was trying to figure out how to abort
the processing cleanly. my initial code looked something like
set -e -o pipefail
function query { result=`sql "$@"`; echo "$result"|grep -q error
&& return 1; echo "$result"; }
query "query"|while read x y z; do handle $x $y $z; done
and i was sort of expecting the set -e, possibly in combination with
the pipefail, to cause the entire script to abort before ever calling
handle.
i guess my fundamental mistake (one i perpetually make whenever i get
back into serious shell scripting) was forgetting about the parallel
nature of pipes....
at the moment, BTW, i'm basically doing
t=`mktemp`
query "query" >$t
while read x y z; do handle $x $y $z; done < $t
rm $t
so that the errexit has a chance to see if something goes wrong with the query.
--
Aaron Davies
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
ast-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-users
