Re: Remove "shell" as a supported Babel language within ob-shell.el (was Re: [SUGGESTION] ob-shell async result output should not contains shell prompt)

2023-03-27 Thread Matt 


  On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 07:38:58 -0400  Ihor Radchenko  wrote --- 

  > I suggest the following:
 > 1. Introduce a new customization `org-babel-default-shell', defaulting
 >to (or (executable-find "sh") (executable-find "cmd.exe")).
 > 2. Use the value as default shell in "shell" code blocks.
 > 3. Document and announce the change.
 > 4. Create org-lint checker that will mark "shell" code blocks as not
 >desired.
 > 
 > The above steps will ensure minimal breakage for existing uses of
 > "shell" blocks. Only users who wrote shell blocks for non-standard shell
 > will have to adapt.
 
These are good suggestions.  Thank you!

Re: Remove "shell" as a supported Babel language within ob-shell.el (was Re: [SUGGESTION] ob-shell async result output should not contains shell prompt)

2023-03-25 Thread Ihor Radchenko 
Samuel Wales  writes:

> i have a vague memory of having used sh and then we were told to use
> shell.  can we all use begin src sh now?

You can use anything listed in `org-babel-shell-names'.
Also, see https://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/languages/ob-doc-shell.html

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at

Re: Remove "shell" as a supported Babel language within ob-shell.el (was Re: [SUGGESTION] ob-shell async result output should not contains shell prompt)

2023-03-25 Thread Samuel Wales 
i have a vague memory of having used sh and then we were told to use
shell.  can we all use begin src sh now?

On 3/24/23, Ihor Radchenko  wrote:
> Matt  writes:
>
>> What benefit does "shell" provide?
>>
>> - The "shell" language allows an arbitrary executable to be run.  This
>> means that shells other than those given in `org-babel-shell-names' can be
>> run.  People using a non-supported shell could still benefit from
>> ob-shell.
>>
>> What downsides does "shell" bring?
>>
>> - "shell" falls back to `shell-file-name' which can be an arbitrary
>> executable.  Whenever I hear "runs an arbitrary executable", my ears perk
>> up and I start to sweat.  There may be security considerations.
>> - If that executable is a shell, then the prompt gets set independently
>> from Emacs.  For the prompt to be filtered from the output, users would
>> need to provide Emacs with the correct regexp.  A recent thread discussed
>> creating a header arg to address this:
>> https://list.orgmode.org/87ttzgeg3w.fsf@localhost/
>> - We would get bug reports about non-supported shells which kind of work,
>> but have issues because they're not supported
>> - Maintence associated with supporting arbitrary (shell) executables
>>
>> As the current maintainer of ob-shell, I'm in favor of removing "shell" as
>> a Babel language.  The cons appear to far outweigh the pros.  However, I'm
>> aware others may have good use for it.  It's been a part of Org for nearly
>> a decade.  I'm sure it's part of people's workflow, especially since it's
>> been in the manual for 6 years.  Are there any pros, cons, use-cases, or
>> considerations I've overlooked?
>
> I would not see arbitrary executable to be such a big deal. At the end,
> if SHELL is set to something fishy, the user is likely in serious
> trouble anyway. SHELL is a part POSIX standard at the end.
>
> Yet, the problem with unsupported shells is indeed real.
> Moreover, "shell" code blocks are currently not portable to different
> environments.
>
> I suggest the following:
> 1. Introduce a new customization `org-babel-default-shell', defaulting
>to (or (executable-find "sh") (executable-find "cmd.exe")).
> 2. Use the value as default shell in "shell" code blocks.
> 3. Document and announce the change.
> 4. Create org-lint checker that will mark "shell" code blocks as not
>desired.
>
> The above steps will ensure minimal breakage for existing uses of
> "shell" blocks. Only users who wrote shell blocks for non-standard shell
> will have to adapt.
>
> --
> Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
> Org mode contributor,
> Learn more about Org mode at .
> Support Org development at ,
> or support my work at 
>
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy:
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

Re: Remove "shell" as a supported Babel language within ob-shell.el (was Re: [SUGGESTION] ob-shell async result output should not contains shell prompt)

2023-03-24 Thread Ihor Radchenko 
Matt  writes:

> What benefit does "shell" provide?
>
> - The "shell" language allows an arbitrary executable to be run.  This means 
> that shells other than those given in `org-babel-shell-names' can be run.  
> People using a non-supported shell could still benefit from ob-shell.
>
> What downsides does "shell" bring?
>
> - "shell" falls back to `shell-file-name' which can be an arbitrary 
> executable.  Whenever I hear "runs an arbitrary executable", my ears perk up 
> and I start to sweat.  There may be security considerations.  
> - If that executable is a shell, then the prompt gets set independently from 
> Emacs.  For the prompt to be filtered from the output, users would need to 
> provide Emacs with the correct regexp.  A recent thread discussed creating a 
> header arg to address this: https://list.orgmode.org/87ttzgeg3w.fsf@localhost/
> - We would get bug reports about non-supported shells which kind of work, but 
> have issues because they're not supported
> - Maintence associated with supporting arbitrary (shell) executables
>
> As the current maintainer of ob-shell, I'm in favor of removing "shell" as a 
> Babel language.  The cons appear to far outweigh the pros.  However, I'm 
> aware others may have good use for it.  It's been a part of Org for nearly a 
> decade.  I'm sure it's part of people's workflow, especially since it's been 
> in the manual for 6 years.  Are there any pros, cons, use-cases, or 
> considerations I've overlooked?

I would not see arbitrary executable to be such a big deal. At the end,
if SHELL is set to something fishy, the user is likely in serious
trouble anyway. SHELL is a part POSIX standard at the end.

Yet, the problem with unsupported shells is indeed real.
Moreover, "shell" code blocks are currently not portable to different
environments.

I suggest the following:
1. Introduce a new customization `org-babel-default-shell', defaulting
   to (or (executable-find "sh") (executable-find "cmd.exe")).
2. Use the value as default shell in "shell" code blocks.
3. Document and announce the change.
4. Create org-lint checker that will mark "shell" code blocks as not
   desired.

The above steps will ensure minimal breakage for existing uses of
"shell" blocks. Only users who wrote shell blocks for non-standard shell
will have to adapt.

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at

Remove "shell" as a supported Babel language within ob-shell.el (was Re: [SUGGESTION] ob-shell async result output should not contains shell prompt)

2023-03-23 Thread Matt 
 > Matt m...@excalamus.com> writes:
 >
 > > Is there a reason you're using "shell" instead of one of the shells listed 
 > > in `org-babel-shell-names'?

I'm still curious why you're using "shell".  I want to know if it's something 
you're using for a specific reason.  There's no wrong answer!

I ask because I have an agenda: as far as I can tell, "shell" as a Babel 
language is a historical accident.  

#+begin_longwinded_explanation
Originally, ob-shell.el was called ob-sh.el.  The main function was called 
`org-babel-execute:sh' and only /usr/bin/env sh was supported.  Over time it 
became clear that to support other shells, the "sh" name shouldn't be used for 
the package or the main function.  That is, 'sh' refers to a specific binary 
and, if other binaries such as bash, dash, csh, etc. were to be supported, it 
would be misleading for the Babel language to refer to a specific shell, 'sh'.  
So, the terminology was changed to something more general, "shell".  The 
package was renamed to "ob-shell.el", the "namespace" updated to "shell" (for 
example, `org-babel-execute:shell'), and the package load call changed from (sh 
. t) to (shell . t).  This officially happened with Org 8.2 (ORG-NEWS noted the 
change in commit 1a9adcb6d34bcbdff45445c827ed99dbf0b8, Tue Jan 21 09:52:31 
2014).  I think this gave people the (understandable) impression that "shell" 
was a valid Babel language, in addition to those listed in 
`org-babel-shell-names'.  

And this is where the accident happened: "shell" as a Babel language only 
**happens**to work.  The Babel framework looks for a function prototype like 
"org-babel-execute:".  When ob-sh.el was changed to ob-shell.el, the 
function `org-babel-execute:sh' became `org-babel-execute:shell'.   A call like 
follows is perfectly legal as far as the Babel framework is concerned:

#+begin_src shell
echo "hello, world"
#+end_src

When such a block is run, Babel looks for a function called 
`org-babel-execute:shell'.  Running the block prior to Org 8.2 should have 
failed because no `org-babel-execute:shell' function existed.  The name change 
happened to source Fri Dec 13 09:52:05 2013 in commit 
7a6c0e35415c4a173d101336029262f3a09abb91.  After the name change, the function 
existed and a block using "shell" would execute!  

The "shell" language specifier, as far as I can tell, was never really 
intentionally supported.  Instead, it just happened to work.  It happened to 
work because, as far back as the first org-babel-sh.el commit, the process 
buffer is created using the `shell' function.  I don't know the history of 
`shell', but presently the documentation says,

Program used comes from variable ‘explicit-shell-file-name’,
 or (if that is nil) from the ESHELL environment variable,
 or (if that is nil) from ‘shell-file-name’.

That is, the `shell' command falls back to `shell-file-name'.  I assume that 
`shell' has always had that, or a similar, fallback.  The `shell-file-name' is 
a direct path to an executable.   This means that when "shell" is used for the 
language, `shell-file-name' is called and **any** startup script, such as 
.bash_profile or .bashrc, is called.  The prompt could be set to **anything** 
and Emacs will never know, and can never know, what the prompt is without the 
user explicitly informing Emacs.

Aside from the code change which allowed "shell" to work, "official" support of 
"shell" comes from Org manual commit 9d072ad67517875069f913315d762c9bb1e9c3ec, 
Sun Dec 17 11:06:05 2017 (for example, 
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git/tree/doc/org-manual.org?id=f7aa8c19f5170dbf09538686fb569f9b60acbd6c#n18410).
  This appears unconnected with the code change.  The addition to the manual 
happened 4 years after the code name change and none of the commit messages 
around the time of code change suggest that "shell" was intended to work as a 
language.  In fact, I found this email from Eric Schulte (creator of Babel and 
maintainer at the time of the code change) which suggests that "shell" is in 
fact not supported or intented as a language 
(https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-12/msg00294.html):

In response to the statement,

"a coworker used "#+BEGIN_SRC shell" where he should have written "#+BEGIN_SRC 
sh"

Eric says,

"[The suggested work around] would protect against this particular error"

#+end_longwinded_explanation

Regardless of whether "shell" was intended to work as a Babel language, the 
fact remains that it does work and that it's been advertised in the manual (at 
least) for 6 years.  What are the pros and cons of "shell"?

What benefit does "shell" provide?

- The "shell" language allows an arbitrary executable to be run.  This means 
that shells other than those given in `org-babel-shell-names' can be run.  
People using a non-supported shell could still benefit from ob-shell.

What downsides does "shell" bring?

- "shell" falls back to `shell-file-name' which can be an arbitrary executable.