retaining stdin if script is run through pipe - shell

I have the following script which is built to read in stdin and print it out:
#############
# myscript.sh
#############
#!/bin/sh
STDIN=$(less <&0 2>/dev/null)
echo $STDIN
This script works if run the "normal"/"expected" way:
echo Testing | ./myscript.sh
Testing
However, I need to run it differently...i.e. storing the script in a variable and running it. But the problem is, when I do, i lose the stdin information.
[root#ip-test]# thescript=$(cat ./myscript.sh)
[root#ip-test]#
[root#ip-test]# echo Testing | echo "${thescript}" | sh
## I get no response
How can I resolve this?

Pass the script as a command line argument instead.
echo Testing | sh -c "$thescript"

Related

Redirect copy of stdin to file from within bash script itself

In reference to https://stackoverflow.com/a/11886837/1996022 (also shamelessly stole the title) where the question is how to capture the script's output I would like to know how I can additionally capture the scripts input. Mainly so scripts that also have user input produce complete logs.
I tried things like
exec 3< <(tee -ia foo.log <&3)
exec <&3 <(tee -ia foo.log <&3)
But nothing seems to work. I'm probably just missing something.
Maybe it'd be easier to use the script command? You could either have your users run the script with script directly, or do something kind of funky like this:
#!/bin/bash
main() {
read -r -p "Input string: "
echo "User input: $REPLY"
}
if [ "$1" = "--log" ]; then
# If the first argument is "--log", shift the arg
# out and run main
shift
main "$#"
else
# If run without log, re-run this script within a
# script command so all script I/O is logged
script -q -c "$0 --log $*" test.log
fi
Unfortunately, you can't pass a function to script -c which is why the double-call is necessary in this method.
If it's acceptable to have two scripts, you could also have a user-facing script that just calls the non-user-facing script with script:
script_for_users.sh
--------------------
#!/bin/sh
script -q -c "/path/to/real_script.sh" <log path>
real_script.sh
---------------
#!/bin/sh
<Normal business logic>
It's simpler:
#! /bin/bash
tee ~/log | your_script
The wonderful thing is your_script can be a function, command or a {} command block!

Copy *unbuffered* stdout to file from within bash script itself

I want to copy stdout to a log file from within a bash script, meaning I don't want to call the script with output piped to tee, I want the script itself to handle it. I've successfully used this answer to accomplish this, using the following code:
#!/bin/bash
exec > >(sed "s/^/[${1}] /" | tee -a myscript.log)
exec 2>&1
# <rest of script>
echo "hello"
sleep 10
echo "world"
This works, but has the downside of output being buffered until the script is completed, as is also discussed in the linked answer. In the above example, both "hello" and "world" will show up in the log only after the 10 seconds have passed.
I am aware of the stdbuf command, and if running the script with
stdbuf -oL ./myscript.sh
then stdout is indeed continuously printed both to the file and the terminal.
However, I'd like this to be handled from within the script as well. Is there any way to combine these two solutions? I'd rather not resort to a wrapper script that simply calls the original script enclosed with "stdbuf -oL".
You can use a workaround and make the script execute itself with stdbuf, if a special argument is present:
#!/bin/bash
if [[ "$1" != __BUFFERED__ ]]; then
prog="$0"
stdbuf -oL "$prog" __BUFFERED__ "$#"
else
shift #discard __BUFFERED__
exec > >(sed "s/^/[${1}] /" | tee -a myscript.log)
exec 2>&1
# <rest of script>
echo "hello"
sleep 1
echo "world"
fi
This will mostly work:
if you run the script with ./test, it shows unbuffered [] hello\n[] world.
if you run the script with ./test 123 456, it shows [123] hello\n[123] world like you want.
it won't work, however, if you run it with bash test - $0 is set to test which is not your script. Fixing this is not in the scope of this question though.
The delay in your first solution is caused by sed, not by tee. Try this instead:
#!/bin/bash
exec 6>&1 2>&1>&>(tee -a myscript.log)
To "undo" the tee effect:
exec 1>&6 2>&6 6>&-

Issue with scheduling in Linux

I scheduled a script using at scheduler in linux.
The job ran fine but the echo statements which I had redirected to a file are no where to be found.
The at scheduling command is as follows:
at -f /app/data/scripts/func_test.sh >> /app/data/log/log.txt 2>&1 -v 09:50
Can anyone point out what is the issue with the above command.
I cannot see any echo statements from the script in the log.txt file
To include shell syntax like I/O redirection, you'll need to either fold it into your script, or pass the input to at via standard input, like so:
at -v 09:50 <<EOF
sh /app/data/scripts/func_test.sh >> /app/data/log/log.txt 2>&1
EOF
If func_test.sh is already executable, you can omit the sh from the beginning of the command; it's there to ensure that you are passing a valid command line to at.
You can also simply ensure that your script itself redirects all its output to a specific log file. As an example,
#!/bin/bash
echo foo
echo bar
becomes
#!/bin/bash
{
echo foo
echo bar
} >> /app/data/log/log.txt 2>&1
Then you can simply run your script with at using
at -f /app/data/scripts/func_test.sh -v 09:50
with no output redirection, because the script itself already redirects all its output to that file.

Bash script how to execute a command from a variable

I am trying to alter the Bash function below to execute each command argument. But when I run this script, the first echo works as intended, but the second echo that attempts to append to the scratch.txt file does not actually execute. It just gets echo'd into the prompt.
#!/bin/sh
clear
function each(){
while read line; do
for cmd in "$#"; do
cmd=${cmd//%/$line}
printf "%s\n" "$cmd"
$cmd
done
done
}
# pipe in the text file and run both commands
# on each line of the file
cat scratch.txt | each 'echo %' 'echo -e "%" >> "scratch.txt"'
exit 0
How do I get the $cmd variable to execute as a command?
I found the original code from answer 2 here:
Running multiple commands with xargs
You want eval. It's evil. Or at least, dangerous. Read all about it at BashFAQ #48.

Determining whether shell script was executed "sourcing" it

Is it possible for a shell script to test whether it was executed through source? That is, for example,
$ source myscript.sh
$ ./myscript.sh
Can myscript.sh distinguish from these different shell environments?
I think, what Sam wants to do may be not possible.
To what degree a half-baken workaround is possible, depends on...
...the default shell of users, and
...which alternative shells they are allowed to use.
If I understand Sam's requirement correctly, he wants to have a 'script',
myscript, that is...
...not directly executable via invoking it by its name myscript
(i.e. that has chmod a-x);
...not indirectly executable for users by invoking sh myscript or
invoking bash myscript
...only running its contained functions and commands if invoked by
sourcing it: . myscript
The first things to consider are these
Invoking a script directly by its name (myscript) requires a first line in
the script like #!/bin/bash or similar. This will directly determine which
installed instance of the bash executable (or symlink) will be invoked to run
the script's content. This will be a new shell process. It requires the
scriptfile itself to have the executable flag set.
Running a script by invoking a shell binary with the script's (path+)name as
an argument (sh myscript), is the same as '1.' -- except that the
executable flag does not need to be set, and said first line with the
hashbang isn't required either. The only thing needed is that the invoking
user needs read access to the scriptfile.
Invoking a script by sourcing its filename (. myscript) is very much the
same as '1.' -- exept that it isn't a new shell that is invoked. All the
script's commands are executed in the current shell, using its environment
(and also "polluting" its environment with any (new) variables it may set or
change. (Usually this is a very dangerous thing to do: but here it could be
used to execute exit $RETURNVALUE under certain conditions....)
For '1.':
Easy to achieve: chmod a-x myscript will prevent myscript from being
directly executable. But this will not fullfill requirements '2.' and '3.'.
For '2.' and '3.':
Much harder to achieve. Invokations by sh myscript require reading
privileges for the file. So an obvious way out would seem to chmod a-r
myscript. However, this will also dis-allow '3.': you will not be able to
source the script either.
So what about writting the script in a way that uses a Bashism? A Bashism is a
specific way to do something which other shells do not understand: using
specific variables, commands etc. This could be used inside the script to
discover this condition and "do something" about it (like "display warning.txt",
"mailto admin" etc.). But there is no way in hell that this will prevent sh or
bash or any other shell from reading and trying to execute all the following
commands/lines written into the script unless you kill the shell by invoking
exit.
Examples: in Bash, the environment seen by the script knows of $BASH,
$BASH_ARGV, $BASH_COMMAND, $BASH_SUBSHELL, BASH_EXECUTION_STRING... . If
invoked by sh (also if sourced inside a sh), the executing shell will see
all these $BASH_* as empty environment variables. Again, this could be used
inside the script to discover this condition and "do something"... but not
prevent the following commands from being invoked!
I'm now assuming that...
...the script is using #!/bin/bash as its first line,
...users have set Bash as their shell and are invoking commands in the
following table from Bash and it is their login shell,
...sh is available and it is a symlink to bash or dash.
This will mean the following invokations are possible, with the listed values
for environment variables
vars+invok's | ./scriptname | sh scriptname | bash scriptname | . scriptname
---------------+--------------+---------------+-----------------+-------------
$0 | ./scriptname | ./scriptname | ./scriptname | -bash
$SHLVL | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1
$SHELLOPTS | braceexpand: | (empty) | braceexpand:.. | braceexpand:
$BASH | /bin/bash | (empty) | /bin/bash | /bin/bash
$BASH_ARGV | (empty) | (empty) | (empty) | scriptname
$BASH_SUBSHELL | 0 | (empty) | 0 | 0
$SHELL | /bin/bash | /bin/bash | /bin/bash | /bin/bash
$OPTARG | (empty) | (empty) | (emtpy) | (emtpy)
Now you could put a logic into your text script:
If $0 is not equal to -bash, then do an exit $SOMERETURNVALUE.
In case the script was called via sh myscript or bash myscript, then it will
exit the calling shell. In case it was run in the current shell, it will
continue to run. (Warning: in case the script has any other exit statements,
your current shell will be 'killed'...)
So put into your non-executable myscript.txt near its beginning something like
this may do something close to your goal:
echo BASH=$BASH
test x${BASH} = x/bin/bash && echo "$? : FINE.... You're using 'bash ...'"
test x${BASH} = x/bin/bash || echo "$? : RATS !!! -- You're not using BASH and I will kick you out!"
test x${BASH} = x/bin/bash || exit 42
test x"${0}" = x"-bash" && echo "$? : FINE.... You've sourced me, and I'm your login shell."
test x"${0}" = x"-bash" || echo "$? : RATS !!! -- You've not sourced me (or I'm not your bash login shell) and I will kick you out!"
test x"${0}" = x"-bash" || exit 33
This may or may not be what the asker wanted but, on a similar situation, I wanted a script to indicate that it is meant to be sourced and not directly run.
To achieve this effect my script reads:
#!/bin/echo Should be run as: source
export SOMEPATH="/some/path/on/my/system"
echo "Your environment has been set up"
So when I run it either as a command or sourced I get:
$ ./myscript.sh
Should be run as: source ./myscript.sh
$ source ./myscript.sh
Your environment has been set up
You can of course fool the script by running it as sh ./myscript.sh, but at least it gives the correct expected behaviour on 2 out of 3 cases.
This is what I was looking for:
[[ ${BASH_SOURCE[0]} = $0 ]] && main "$#"
I cannot add comment yet (stackexchange policies) so I add my own answer:
This one may works regardless if we do:
bash scriptname
scriptname
./scriptname.
on both bash and mksh.
if [ "${0##/*}" == scriptname ] # if the current name is our script
then
echo run
else
echo sourced
fi
If you have a non-altering file path for regular users, then:
if [ "$(/bin/readlink -f "$0")" = "$KNOWN_PATH_OF_THIS_FILE" ]; then
# the file was executed
else
# the file was sourced
fi
(it can also easily be loosened to only check for the filename or whatever).
But your users need to have read permission to be able to source the file, so absolutely nothing can stop them from doing what they want with the file. But it might help them out to not use it in the wrong way.
This solution is not dependent on Bashisms.
Yes it is possible. In general you can do the following:
#! /bin/bash
sourced () {
echo Sourced
}
executed () {
echo Executed
}
if [[ ${0##*/} == -* ]]; then
sourced
else
executed $#
fi
Giving the following output:
$ ./myscript
Executed
$ . ./myscript
Sourced
Based on Kurt Pfeifle’s answer, this works for me
if [ $SHLVL = 1 ]
then
echo 'script was sourced'
fi
Example
Since all of our machines have history, I did this:
check_script_call=$(history |tail -1|grep myscript.sh )
if [ -z "$check_script_call" ];then
echo "This file should be called as a source."
echo "Please, try again this way:"
echo "$ source /path/to/myscript.sh"
exit 1
fi
Everytime you run a script (without source), your shell creates a new env without history.
If you want to care about performance you can try this:
if ! history |tail -1|grep set_vars ;then
echo -e "This file should be called as a source.\n"
echo "Please, try again this way:"
echo -e "$ source /path/to/set_vars\n"
exit 1
fi
PS: I think Kurt's answer is much more complete but I think this could help.
In the first case, $0 will be "myscript.sh". In the second case, it will be "./myscript". But, in general, there's no way to tell source was used.
If you tell us what you're trying to do, instead of how you want to do it, a better answer might be forthcoming.

Resources