Re: [LTP] [RFC] Using shellcheck for shell make check

[Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>]

Hello,

Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi!
>> checkbashisms does not detect all things: e.g. not catching {1..$FILE_COUNT}
>> [1]. Maybe we should reconsider using *also* shellcheck as Joerg suggested
>> (keep checkbashisms).
>> 
>> I don't like shellcheck output, but it can detects errors checkbashisms cannot
>> detect (checkbashisms is regexp based, but shellcheck IMHO evaluates the code).
>> Also it's configurable, thus ve could disable check we don't like or enable only
>> what we want to check. Or we can run just --severity=warning or
>> --severity=error. If you're not against it, I can have look into this.
>
> Sounds good, the more automated checks we have the less we will spend on
> review...

We can't vendor in a Haskell program, so it will have to be an optional
check. Still it looks nice.

Tree-sitter also supports "Bash", which might be useful for LTP specific
checks. That ofcourse is much higher hanging fruit.

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp