From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBB69C433F5 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B9E3C6355 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:53:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24E913C08C7 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:53:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31DC2600C7D for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:53:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FA5D1FCA1; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:53:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1638186799; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MfR39UMot+R+2t6Q+o7aewfNxk8aCsbra7GsSEswbJw=; b=sTOXsDCHMUswG+eSfjdWee2vo12ad2rCqIMTUMH5dP/F9UxMj7UIVVYQrqTDQC0pNB8wK+ QDSmJOpPPkKMH7/0FaoulRp+wD/0R/Opqmi0hwF6sRpMNmPkWg4nmXVErUACgfYDSuE9z3 nB/lUwXlS9W7Fs+ArkFeKaaFEGaPaU8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1638186799; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MfR39UMot+R+2t6Q+o7aewfNxk8aCsbra7GsSEswbJw=; b=jHWRxufvy/KzR3YJeGvioeuM5H1JunaHzpaDOZalh8ZFU1t4ZNWzz0UjRrclZQ+QCZOWGu t8vtt4KBhfv2BHCg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3708E13A86; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:53:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id mciRDC+/pGFIIAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:53:19 +0000 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 12:54:29 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Petr Vorel Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [RFC] Using shellcheck for shell make check X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" 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... -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp