On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:33 PM, R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 02/04/2018 07:22 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: >>> This is everything that shellcheck reported as an error. They are not >>> as serious as the globbing issue, but it would be a good idea to >>> change them. They are generally "type" issues (e.g. ">" instead of >>> "-gt"). >>> >>> Some changes are shellcheck annotations. Very interesting was: >>> >>> eval "$x=(\"\${$x[@]}\" ${QA_PREBUILT//\*/.*})" >>> >>> Which looks like a bad array expansion ("$x[@]"). >> >> I don't see a shellcheck error for that, using shellcheck-0.4.7. Maybe a >> false positive with an older version? >> > > 0.4.6, I will see if I can check.
Still in 0.4.7. > >>> diff --git a/bin/isolated-functions.sh b/bin/isolated-functions.sh >>> index b28e44f18..377b32d90 100644 >>> --- a/bin/isolated-functions.sh >>> +++ b/bin/isolated-functions.sh >>> @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ __dump_trace() { >>> lineno=${BASH_LINENO[${n} - 1]} >>> # Display function arguments >>> args= >>> - if [[ -n "${BASH_ARGV[@]}" ]]; then >>> + if [[ -n "${BASH_ARGV[*]}" ]]; then >> >> I feel like the shellcheck authors might be willing to accept [[ -n >> ${BASH_ARGV[@]} ]] or [[ ${BASH_ARGV[@]} ]] as correct, since the >> "Problematic code" that they cite involves an incorrect comparison: >> >> https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/wiki/SC2199#problematic-code >> > > This example might be more illustrative: > > argc () { > echo $# > } > > argc "${BASH_ARGV[*]}" > argc "${BASH_ARGV[@]}" > > > Output (./test.sh a b): > > 1 > 2 > > > Which changes the semantics of the tests in which it is present. It is > hard to know what [[ is doing; if the same is attempted with [ it > would be an error for the same reason that globbing produces errors. > See: > > [ "${BASH_ARGV[*]}" ] > [ "${BASH_ARGV[@]}" ] # Fails; [: b: unary operator expected > [[ "${BASH_ARGV[*]}" ]] > [[ "${BASH_ARGV[@]}" ]] > > > It is possible [[ ignores the extra elements. I can't think of a > reason where this would make the results of the test different. At the > same time, it might give people the wrong impression of the operation > of [. > > In the sense that [ and [[ represent test(1), anything but the "[*]" > expansion is incorrect, as the error message indicates. That [[ treats > its arguments specially because it is a feature of the syntax just > makes the situation more confusing. > > Cheers, > R0b0t1