[PATCH v2 2/3] allow positional arguments with "run" command

Rasmus Villemoes
2020-10-15T22:06:36Z

On 15/10/2020 17.05, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 01:06, Rasmus Villemoes
> <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2020 05.34, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 01:21, Rasmus Villemoes
>>> <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> cmd/Kconfig | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> cmd/nvedit.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>> common/cli.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>> common/cli_hush.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>> include/cli_hush.h | 9 +++++++++
>>>> 5 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where the previous discussion went. But please think
>>> about how we can add some tests here.
>>
>> Isn't that exactly what I do in 3/3? Or are you thinking of something else?
>>
>
> Yes that's good, but is the plan now to take these patches rather than
> update to the latest hush? I was wondering is Buzybox has any tests
> for hush.

Well, updating the whole hush code is not, as I've said before,
something I can or will take on me ATM, and it's not even clear that
that would automatically provide real shell functions.

Whether "the plan" includes accepting these patches I can't say. I'm
just trying to plug a hole and make the U-Boot shell a little more
usable. It's somewhat similar to the setexpr command; we don't have
$((a+4)) arithmetic, but can achieve the same thing with an extra
command. Or askenv, which takes the place of 'read -p'. Or run, for that
matter, which combined with setenv can do much of what eval in a POSIX
shell could do. And with 3/3, there's a place to put tests of e.g.
setexpr (not that adding the boilerplate is hard, but it is a tedious
first step; once that is in place, adding extra test cases is somewhat
easier and natural).

Rasmus