3 ms·
But also please consider using Shellcheck if you do: * https://www.shellcheck.net https://www.shellcheck.net
by throw0101c 4y ago
But also please consider using Shellcheck if you do:
* https://www.shellcheck.net https://www.shellcheck.net
- jamal-kumar 4y agoIt's such an essential tool. Always such a beast to install it though, definitely keep it off any servers. It's probably saved myself from weird hard to see mistakes so many times I wouldn't be able to count them because if I didn't have that tool I might not even see it until runtime, which is a terrible place to discover an error.
- fbdab103 4y ago>Always such a beast to install it though, definitely keep it off any servers. I do not follow. Isn't it just a static executable? I have only ever apt-get installed, but I am unsure where the complication rests, unless you are compiling from source.
- blueflow 4y agoShellcheck is useful if you are learning shell, but it gets really annoying over time with its amount of false positives. Its still a static checker that does not understand context. I've seen too many scripts where half of all comments lines were shellcheck disables.
- return_to_monke 4y agoI'd rather have false lints than miss lints
- Too 4y agoIn my experience false positives are rare. You need to a take some time to actually understand the warnings to know how to avoid them, often there is some edge case lurking even the most trivial code. I see a lot of people are way too quick on dismissing the warnings, because they are overconfident that they know shell, when in fact most people don't have the slightest clue on the amounts of footguns hidden.