4 ms·

Cool tool but I'm really confused by the name choice. Sure choosing names is hard but by using a name of a common tool for an unrelated tool will just cause pro

Cool tool but I'm really confused by the name choice. Sure choosing names is hard but by using a name of a common tool for an unrelated tool will just cause problems for people looking for bash spellcheck tools.

agumonkey 12y ago
Looks like a pun on the shellshock bug.
- Hello71 12y ago
  shellcheck is significantly older than shellshock, in terms of naming date anyways. https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck
koala_man 12y ago
I'm the author! Since naming the tool, I've discovered that a significant segment of the population (such as yourself) repeatedly misread the name as "spellcheck". The name is actually "shellcheck" (shell + check). It's a fascinating effect because people seem to be very consistent in whether they read it one way or the other. If linguists don't already have a name for this sharp, binary classification, I propose "n-Gram staining".
- uaygsfdbzf 12y ago
  Some ideas for the future: Add support for the Firehose XML output format: https://github.com/fedora-static-analysis/firehose https://github.com/fedora-static-analysis/firehose Checks for features that are specific to one shell (bashisms etc) when used with POSIX #!/bin/sh. Checks for features that aren't implemented in the desired shell (for running on busybox sh for example). Check for the various issues listed here: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls
  - koala_man 12y ago
    Thanks! ShellCheck already checks for bashism if the script is declared with #!/bin/sh, and finds most of the ones that checkbashisms does along with a few others. It's geared towards POSIX compliance though, and doesn't know which non-POSIX feature are available in e.g. busybox sh. There is also some limited support for warning about features not available between non-POSIX shells, such as trying to use zsh =(temp files) in bash or bash ;;& case continuations in zsh, but this isn't as much of a focus as POSIX checks since it's not a common source of issues. The Wooledge pitfall list was the original implementation checklist. About 38 out of the 46 are already covered in one form or another. I haven't heard of Firehose before, but if you want to use it right now you can run shellcheck with -f gcc, to get gcc style error messages that Firehose can already parse.
- tach4n 12y ago
  Yes, I experienced this as well. The way the human brain works is crazy. You take the very very strong expectation of reading "spellcheck", and then you swap out a "p" for something that looks a lot like an upside-down "p"...and it refuses to read it as anything else.
- anonfunction 12y ago
  Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was reading it as "spellcheck" the whole time!

agumonkey 12y ago

Looks like a pun on the shellshock bug.

Hello71 12y ago
shellcheck is significantly older than shellshock, in terms of naming date anyways. https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck

koala_man 12y ago

I'm the author! Since naming the tool, I've discovered that a significant segment of the population (such as yourself) repeatedly misread the name as "spellcheck". The name is actually "shellcheck" (shell + check). It's a fascinating effect because people seem to be very consistent in whether they read it one way or the other. If linguists don't already have a name for this sharp, binary classification, I propose "n-Gram staining".

uaygsfdbzf 12y ago
Some ideas for the future: Add support for the Firehose XML output format: https://github.com/fedora-static-analysis/firehose https://github.com/fedora-static-analysis/firehose Checks for features that are specific to one shell (bashisms etc) when used with POSIX #!/bin/sh. Checks for features that aren't implemented in the desired shell (for running on busybox sh for example). Check for the various issues listed here: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls
- koala_man 12y ago
  Thanks! ShellCheck already checks for bashism if the script is declared with #!/bin/sh, and finds most of the ones that checkbashisms does along with a few others. It's geared towards POSIX compliance though, and doesn't know which non-POSIX feature are available in e.g. busybox sh. There is also some limited support for warning about features not available between non-POSIX shells, such as trying to use zsh =(temp files) in bash or bash ;;& case continuations in zsh, but this isn't as much of a focus as POSIX checks since it's not a common source of issues. The Wooledge pitfall list was the original implementation checklist. About 38 out of the 46 are already covered in one form or another. I haven't heard of Firehose before, but if you want to use it right now you can run shellcheck with -f gcc, to get gcc style error messages that Firehose can already parse.
tach4n 12y ago
Yes, I experienced this as well. The way the human brain works is crazy. You take the very very strong expectation of reading "spellcheck", and then you swap out a "p" for something that looks a lot like an upside-down "p"...and it refuses to read it as anything else.
anonfunction 12y ago
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was reading it as "spellcheck" the whole time!