Re: [CentOS] bash test ?
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 09:16:26PM +0200, lejeczek via CentOS wrote:
>>On 19/04/2023 08:46, wwp wrote:
>>> Hello lejeczek,
> ...
> Surround ${_Val} with double quotes (as you should) and things will
> be different:
>
> $ unset _Val; test -n "${_Val}"; echo $?
> 1
>
> Now you get it? :-)
>
I don't know, am not sure, I remembered it differently, did not think
enclosing quotes were necessary(always?) for that were {}
>>> {} does not prevent this (at least not in bash):
>>>
>>> $ FOO="a b"
>>>
>>> $ test -z $FOO
>>> bash: test: a: binary operator expected
>>>
>>> $ test -z ${FOO}
>>> bash: test: a: binary operator expected
>>>
>>> Because after $FOO or ${FOO} variable expansion, bash parsed:
>>> test -z a b
>>> 'b' is unexpected, from a grammar point of view.
>>>
>>> Quoting is expected, here:
>>> $ test -z "$FOO"
>>>
>>>
>>> When FOO is unset, apparently it's a different matter, where you end up
>>> with $?=0 in all unquoted -n/-z cases, interestingly. I could not find
>>> this specific case in the bash documentation. That may not be portable
>>> to other shells, BTW. I only use {} when necessary (because of what
>>> bash allows to do between {}, plenty!, or when inserting $FOO into a
>>> literal string that may lead the parser to take the whole string for a
>>> variable name: echo $FOObar != echo ${FOO}bar).
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>There is a several ways to run tests in shell, but 'test'
>>which is own binary as I understand, defeats me..
>
> Yes, there is a binary for test (and its alternate '[').
>
> But most shells, including bash have incorporated code for test
> (and other commands) into the shell code itself for efficiency.
>
> $ type test
> test is a shell builtin
>
>>
>>I'd expect a consistency, like with what I usually do to
>>test for empty var:
>>-> $ export _Val=some; [[ -v _Val ]]; echo $?
>>0
>>-> $ unset _Val; [[ -v _Val ]]; echo $?
>>1
>>
>
> I do hope you don't use -v to test for empty variables as
> it tests for "set" variables and valid name syntax.
>
> Set variables can be "empty" ( name= ).
>
> But in your last example _Val is "un"set, it does not
> exist. Thus it can neither be empty nor occupied.
And to know if a variable is declared or not, this can be used:
if (( ${VAR+1} )); then
echo "variable \$VAR is set"
else
echo "variable \$VAR is NOT set"
fi
Regards,
Simon
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bash test ?
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 09:16:26PM +0200, lejeczek via CentOS wrote:
On 19/04/2023 08:46, wwp wrote:
Hello lejeczek,
...
Surround ${_Val} with double quotes (as you should) and things will be
different:
$ unset _Val; test -n "${_Val}"; echo $?
1
Now you get it? :-)
I don't know, am not sure, I remembered it differently, did not think enclosing
quotes were necessary(always?) for that were {}
{} does not prevent this (at least not in bash):
$ FOO="a b"
$ test -z $FOO
bash: test: a: binary operator expected
$ test -z ${FOO}
bash: test: a: binary operator expected
Because after $FOO or ${FOO} variable expansion, bash parsed:
test -z a b
'b' is unexpected, from a grammar point of view.
Quoting is expected, here:
$ test -z "$FOO"
When FOO is unset, apparently it's a different matter, where you end up
with $?=0 in all unquoted -n/-z cases, interestingly. I could not find
this specific case in the bash documentation. That may not be portable
to other shells, BTW. I only use {} when necessary (because of what
bash allows to do between {}, plenty!, or when inserting $FOO into a
literal string that may lead the parser to take the whole string for a
variable name: echo $FOObar != echo ${FOO}bar).
Regards,
There is a several ways to run tests in shell, but 'test'
which is own binary as I understand, defeats me..
Yes, there is a binary for test (and its alternate '[').
But most shells, including bash have incorporated code for test
(and other commands) into the shell code itself for efficiency.
$ type test
test is a shell builtin
I'd expect a consistency, like with what I usually do to
test for empty var:
-> $ export _Val=some; [[ -v _Val ]]; echo $?
0
-> $ unset _Val; [[ -v _Val ]]; echo $?
1
I do hope you don't use -v to test for empty variables as
it tests for "set" variables and valid name syntax.
Set variables can be "empty" ( name= ).
But in your last example _Val is "un"set, it does not
exist. Thus it can neither be empty nor occupied.
--
Jon H. LaBadie j...@labadie.us
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bash test ?
Once upon a time, lejeczek said:
> There is a several ways to run tests in shell, but 'test' which is
> own binary as I understand, defeats me..
> in those three examples - regardless of how one can "bend" quoting &
> expanding - the same identical variable syntax is used and yet
> different tests render the same result.
It's because shell variable expansion happens before the command is run.
When you do:
unset _Val; test -z ${_Val}
The shell expands ${_Val} to nothing, then does whitespace removal, and
runs test with a single argument, "-z". When instead you do:
unset _Val; test -z "${_Val}"
The shell sees the quoted string and keeps it as an empty argument, so
test gets run with two arguments: "-z", and "" (null aka a zero-length
string).
It appears that test treats -z/-n (and other tests) with no following
argument as always successful, rather than an error. Checking the
POSIX/Single Unix Specification standard, this is compliant; it says
that any time test is run with one argument, the exit is true (0) if the
argument is not null, false otherwise (e.g. test "" is false, while
test -blob is true).
Note that bash has test and [ as shell builtins, but the external
command /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[ have the same behavior.
The [[ ]] method is a bash extension, and treats a test operator without
a corresponding operand (e.g. [[ -z ]]) as an error condition instead of
returning true.
--
Chris Adams
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bash test ?
On 19/04/2023 08:46, wwp wrote:
Hello lejeczek,
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:10:16 +0200 lejeczek wrote:
On 19/04/2023 08:04, wwp wrote:
Hello lejeczek,
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:50:29 +0200 lejeczek via CentOS
wrote:
Hi guys.
I cannot wrap my hear around this:
-> $ unset _Val; test -z ${_Val}; echo $?
0
-> $ unset _Val; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
0
-> $ _Val=some; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
0
What is this!?
How should two different, opposite tests give the same result
Is there some bash option which affects that and if so, then what would be the
purpose of such nonsense?
Surround ${_Val} with double quotes (as you should) and things will be
different:
$ unset _Val; test -n "${_Val}"; echo $?
1
Now you get it? :-)
I don't know, am not sure, I remembered it differently, did not think enclosing
quotes were necessary(always?) for that were {}
{} does not prevent this (at least not in bash):
$ FOO="a b"
$ test -z $FOO
bash: test: a: binary operator expected
$ test -z ${FOO}
bash: test: a: binary operator expected
Because after $FOO or ${FOO} variable expansion, bash parsed:
test -z a b
'b' is unexpected, from a grammar point of view.
Quoting is expected, here:
$ test -z "$FOO"
When FOO is unset, apparently it's a different matter, where you end up
with $?=0 in all unquoted -n/-z cases, interestingly. I could not find
this specific case in the bash documentation. That may not be portable
to other shells, BTW. I only use {} when necessary (because of what
bash allows to do between {}, plenty!, or when inserting $FOO into a
literal string that may lead the parser to take the whole string for a
variable name: echo $FOObar != echo ${FOO}bar).
Regards,
There is a several ways to run tests in shell, but 'test'
which is own binary as I understand, defeats me..
in those three examples - regardless of how one can "bend"
quoting & expanding - the same identical variable syntax is
used and yet different tests render the same result.
I thought 'test' broke and I had remembered it differently -
meaning 'test' used to give results I thought it did - or
perhaps some 'shopt' changed and affected its behavior.
I'd expect a consistency, like with what I usually do to
test for empty var:
-> $ export _Val=some; [[ -v _Val ]]; echo $?
0
-> $ unset _Val; [[ -v _Val ]]; echo $?
1
Learning, re-learning, round & round it goes..
thanks, L.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bash test ?
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 07:50:29AM +0200, lejeczek via CentOS wrote:
Hi guys.
I cannot wrap my hear around this:
-> $ unset _Val; test -z ${_Val}; echo $?
0
-> $ unset _Val; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
0
-> $ _Val=some; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
0
What is this!?
How should two different, opposite tests give the same result
Is there some bash option which affects that and if so, then
what would be the purpose of such nonsense?
many thanks, L.
Quoted $_Val expands to a null, zero length string.
Unquoted $_Val expands to nothing which is different.
An alternative test with double square brackets would
give you your expected results as it automatically
quotes unquoted variables.
$ unset _Val ; [[ -n $_Val ]] ; echo $?
jl
--
Jon H. LaBadie j...@labadie.us
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bash test ?
Hello lejeczek,
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:10:16 +0200 lejeczek wrote:
> On 19/04/2023 08:04, wwp wrote:
> > Hello lejeczek,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:50:29 +0200 lejeczek via CentOS
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi guys.
> >>
> >> I cannot wrap my hear around this:
> >>
> >> -> $ unset _Val; test -z ${_Val}; echo $?
> >> 0
> >> -> $ unset _Val; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
> >> 0
> >> -> $ _Val=some; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
> >> 0
> >>
> >> What is this!?
> >> How should two different, opposite tests give the same result
> >> Is there some bash option which affects that and if so, then what would be
> >> the purpose of such nonsense?
> > Surround ${_Val} with double quotes (as you should) and things will be
> > different:
> >
> > $ unset _Val; test -n "${_Val}"; echo $?
> > 1
> >
> > Now you get it? :-)
> >
> >
> I don't know, am not sure, I remembered it differently, did not think
> enclosing quotes were necessary(always?) for that were {}
{} does not prevent this (at least not in bash):
$ FOO="a b"
$ test -z $FOO
bash: test: a: binary operator expected
$ test -z ${FOO}
bash: test: a: binary operator expected
Because after $FOO or ${FOO} variable expansion, bash parsed:
test -z a b
'b' is unexpected, from a grammar point of view.
Quoting is expected, here:
$ test -z "$FOO"
When FOO is unset, apparently it's a different matter, where you end up
with $?=0 in all unquoted -n/-z cases, interestingly. I could not find
this specific case in the bash documentation. That may not be portable
to other shells, BTW. I only use {} when necessary (because of what
bash allows to do between {}, plenty!, or when inserting $FOO into a
literal string that may lead the parser to take the whole string for a
variable name: echo $FOObar != echo ${FOO}bar).
Regards,
--
wwp
https://useplaintext.email/
pgpB0NAshqlWd.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bash test ?
On 19/04/2023 08:04, wwp wrote:
Hello lejeczek,
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:50:29 +0200 lejeczek via CentOS
wrote:
Hi guys.
I cannot wrap my hear around this:
-> $ unset _Val; test -z ${_Val}; echo $?
0
-> $ unset _Val; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
0
-> $ _Val=some; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
0
What is this!?
How should two different, opposite tests give the same result
Is there some bash option which affects that and if so, then what would be the
purpose of such nonsense?
Surround ${_Val} with double quotes (as you should) and things will be
different:
$ unset _Val; test -n "${_Val}"; echo $?
1
Now you get it? :-)
I don't know, am not sure, I remembered it differently, did
not think enclosing quotes were necessary(always?) for that
were {}
thanks, L.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] bash test ?
Hello lejeczek,
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:50:29 +0200 lejeczek via CentOS
wrote:
> Hi guys.
>
> I cannot wrap my hear around this:
>
> -> $ unset _Val; test -z ${_Val}; echo $?
> 0
> -> $ unset _Val; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
> 0
> -> $ _Val=some; test -n ${_Val}; echo $?
> 0
>
> What is this!?
> How should two different, opposite tests give the same result
> Is there some bash option which affects that and if so, then what would be
> the purpose of such nonsense?
Surround ${_Val} with double quotes (as you should) and things will be
different:
$ unset _Val; test -n "${_Val}"; echo $?
1
Now you get it? :-)
Regards,
--
wwp
pgpscjFllSH3K.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
