shellcheck

[Martin Schwenke]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:56:51 +1100, Andrew Bartlett
<abartlet at samba.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 13:21 +1100, Martin Schwenke wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 07:12:06 +1100, Andrew Bartlett via samba-technical
> > <samba-technical at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 18:55 +0100, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote:  
>  [...]  
> > > 
> > > This one Andreas raised just before the release because this overall
> > > test now fails for him on Fedora, but not Ubuntu. 
> > > 
> > > We either need to do that (use bash explicitly) or need to have a way
> > > to ensure these don't come back. 
> > > 
> > > One approach would be to put ShellCheck (with an ignore pattern or
> > > expected set of errors) into make test, alongside the python pep8
> > > checks.    
> > 
> > I think that this is generally a good idea.  We did this to all the
> > non-test scripts in CTDB a while ago.
> > 
> > However, it was a lot of work, so I'd like to preempt any idea that we
> > mandate the use of ShellCheck.    
> 
> OK.
> 
> > It is a very blunt instrument that is
> > constantly changing.    
> 
> Ouch.
> 
> > The maintainers sometimes add checks that are of
> > limited value.  There was also a regression in version 0.4.5 (fixed in
> > 0.4.7) but this is not yet in Debian (which is still at 0.4.6), so I
> > see see one test failure when I run on my laptop.
> > 
> > I think the approach should be to use ShellCheck on scripts that are
> > "known good" to ensure that we don't get any regressions.  I would love
> > for CTDB's test scripts to pass ShellCheck but that would require more
> > time than I'm willing to spend on it right now.  
> 
> OK.  I'm mainly interested in asserting that we don't go backwards, a
> bit like we do with the cc warnings -> errors setting.

Using ShellCheck in tests one step closer.

  https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck/pull/1316

The maintainer has just merged a -S/--severity option so that ShellCheck
can now ignore errors below a specified severity level.  This means we
may be able to start with "-S warning" and perhaps progress up to
"-S info".

However, this option needs to be in a release first...  :-)

... and people need time to get their code in shape... gee, even
"-S warning" produces a lot of warnings for the small number of CTDB
tests I've run it over...

peace & happiness,
martin