Re: [libgpiod][PATCH 0/8] tools: tests: fix shellcheck warnings

[Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 12:40:37PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 3:45 PM Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Following up on recent discussions, this series fixes all the warnings
> > detected by shellcheck.  The resulting tools test script is now clean,
> > at least from the perspective of shellcheck.
> >
> > These fixes do not correct any known issue, other than shellcheck
> > reporting them as potential problems, the intent is to remove common
> > shell issues that may impact future changes, and to simplify checking
> > that any subsequent changes to the test script constitute "good" shell.
> >
> > All the patches other than Patch 8 address a particular warning.
> > They are reasonably self-explanatory, but each commit comment includes a
> > link to the relevant warning(s) which describes the issue and the
> > appropriate corrections.
> >
> > Patch 8 addresses a number of warnings, all related to word splitting
> > and globbing, and those constitute the bulk of the changes.
> > Some of the earlier patches also address trivial splitting/globbing
> > issues where that would prevent a line being modified multiple times.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kent.
> >
> > Kent Gibson (8):
> >   tools: tests: don't mix string and array
> >   tools: tests: don't declare and assign separately
> >   tools: tests: fix unused variables
> >   tools: tests: use read -r to avoid mangling backslashes
> >   tools: tests: don't use variables in printf format string
> >   tools: tests: check exit code directly
> >   tools: tests: shellcheck don't follow sourced file
> >   tools: tests: avoid splitting and globbing
> >
> >  tools/gpio-tools-test.bash | 459 +++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 234 insertions(+), 225 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >
>
> Ugh, you added links after the SoB and it messes up with b4. Can you
> resend it with links before any tags? Or better yet: make [x] into
> Link: [x] so that b4 can interpret it correctly?
>

hehe, yeah I wondered about that after I'd sent it.
I'll fix for v2.

Cheers,
Kent.