Shell script indentation

[L.P.H. van Belle]

I dont code in samba (yet) ;-) but reading this, im with Martin.. 
ShellCheck and tabs


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: samba-technical 
> [mailto:samba-technical-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens 
> Martin Schwenke via samba-technical
> Verzonden: donderdag 10 februari 2022 23:55
> Aan: samba-technical at lists.samba.org
> CC: Andreas Schneider
> Onderwerp: Re: Shell script indentation
> 
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:27:30 +0100, Andreas Schneider via
> samba-technical <samba-technical at lists.samba.org> wrote:
> 
> > our shell scripts are a mess and we should try to fix this. 
> So the first 
> > questions is what do we want to use for indentation.
> > 
> > Most of the Samba scripts use 4 spaces.
> > CTDB uses tabs (tabwidth: 8).
> > 
> > We need to settle on one. Should we first collect arguments 
> or directly start 
> > a vote?
> > 
> > 4 spaces or tabs (tw: 8)
> 
> A prominent statement near the top of README.Coding.md says:
> 
> * Use 8 Space Tabs to Indent
> 
> This is in the context of C coding style.  However, I'd suggest that
> we attempt to be consistent for languages that have no official coding
> style.
> 
> When Amitay and I started trying to ensure that CTDB's C code met
> Samba's coding guidelines, we also changed the default for shell
> scripts... to be consistent.  We have spent a lot of time moving
> scripts from 4 spaces to tabs.
> 
> Although a small percentage of overall Samba code is shell scripts:
> 
>   sh:           65132 (1.72%)
> 
> a much more significant percentage of CTDB is shell scripts:
> 
>   sh:           28004 (21.72%)
> 
> Most of that is test code:
> 
>   sh:           23160 (51.79%)
> 
> [Above data generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount'.]
> 
> More than 40% of the shell script in Samba is in CTDB... and, yes, 1/2
> of our test code is shell scripts.
> 
> Rather than focusing on style, I suggest that we attempt to use
> ShellCheck to improve shell scripts.  I realise this is much harder
> because it requires functional code changes rather than just 
> formatting
> changes.
> 
> Currently about 1/3 of CTDB's non-test scripts and a much smaller
> percentage of test scripts are checked using ShellCheck (with some
> exclusions to avoid churn on some trivial and too-hard things).
> 
> A few years ago I added the -S option to ShellCheck to filter the
> minimum "error" level (e.g. error, warning, info, style) with the hope
> of using ShellCheck in Samba CI testing, starting by switching this on
> at error level.
> 
> CTDB does quite amazingly on errors:
> 
>   $ find -name "*.sh" | xargs shellcheck -s sh -S error
>   $ find -name "*.bash" | xargs shellcheck -S error
>   $ shellcheck -s sh -S error config/functions 
>   $ shellcheck -s sh -S error tools/onnode 
>   $ 
> 
> Not quite so well on warnings, but fixing most of those 
> should only be a
> few hours of work.  I say "most" because the scripts use a lot of
> include files, with functions that set globals, so there are a lot
> of SC2154 (var is referenced but not assigned) because 
> ShellCheck can't
> follow the "non-constant includes".
> 
> Sadly, I don't have time to fix the other warnings right now...  :-(
> 
> So, I'll vote for tabs and ShellCheck filtering at error level.  :-D
> 
> peace & happiness,
> martin
> 
>