KSH: IF condition issue: if test .... then vs if ... then - ksh

what is the difference if I put test or without test in a .ksh file?
if test $1 -ne 0 ; then ....
and
if $1 -ne 0 ; then ....
Many Thanks

I actually think this is an important question, as it highlights some important rules in shell programming:
Every command in the shell returns an true (0) or false exit code
Control structures in the shell do not require comparisons
Every command in the shell returns an exit code
Any properly coded command in the shell will return 0 for success,
and non-zero for failure. While there is only one way to succeed, but always more than way to fail.
Example:
$ no-such-command || echo no $?
ksh[1]: no-such-command: not found [No such file or directory]
no 127
$
The exit status of a command is caught in the pseudo variable $? and is available until you complete another command.
This exit status is used in control structures like if ... then ... fi
or until ... do ... done.
failing(){ return 2; }
failing &&
echo "It works" ||
echo "It failed with exit code $?"
results in
It failed with exit code 2
Control structures in the shell do not require comparisons
Let's start with the simplest definition
of the if command:
if compound-list
then
compound-list
fi
For the full syntax, see Section 2.9.4 Compound Commands of Shell Command Language of The Open Group Base Specifications.
Between the keywords, if, then, and fi there are two sections of
code, named compound-list.
This is shorthand for any sequence of code that would be valid in a script. The exit status of the list will be equal to the exit status of the last command in the list.
The important difference for the two lists is that the firts will determine the flow of control, while the second determines the exit status of the entire expression, when executed.
Conclusion
Any command can be used as the test in an if/then/else/fi construct.
Because we often want to test things explicitly, we often use the actual test command or its derivatives [ ... ] and [[ ... ]].
if [[ -n $1 ]]; then
echo "'$1' is a non-empty string"
fi
For complex expressions it is always preferred to wrap them in a
function to apply some abstraction.
One more trivial example:
non_empty_files_present(){
(path=${1:?directory expected}
(find ${path} -type f -size +0 | read line) 2> /dev/null
)
}
if non_empty_files_present /var/tmp; then
echo "Some files have content"
fi

Related

How to determine one program output to pipe as next program input in shell using ${PIPESTATUS[*]}

I am new to shell script. I have a scenario where i need to get the exit status of one shell script and pass its value as input(if exit code is zero/otherwise exit the main shell script file) to the next shell script and continue until it executes all the scripts. Below is the code i tried.but its not working as expected.
status=`run1.sh`
if [[ status -eq 0 ]]; then
status=`run2.sh`
else
exit 1
fi
if [[ status -eq 0 ]];then
status=`run3.sh`
else
exit 2
fi
Its running successfully for first 2 scripts. It's failing on second if block, even though the output value of run2.sh is 0. I searched in google, its suggesting to use {PIPESTATUS[#]}, I tried it by replacing exit 1 with pipestatus and pass pipestatus in the second if block like below.
status=`run1.sh`
if [[ status -eq 0 ]]; then
status=`run2.sh`
else
exit ${PIPESTATUS[1]} ## pipestatus[1]- is run2.sh output value
fi
if [[ ${PIPESTATUS[1]} -eq 0 ]];then
status=`run3.sh`
else
exit 2
fi
I think i am not clear on how to use pipestatus. I would appreciate if anyone can provide me some example to my scenario.
status is a static string; you are not examining the variable you created at all.
There is no pipe here so PIPESTATUS does not come into play. It's for code like
one | two
where traditionally the exit status of one wasn't available to the shell; Bash changed that by exposing results from every process in a pipeline.
Having your scripts print the number zero to signal success is not how it's usually done. A command produces both output and a status code (the number you give as the argument to exit, or in a function, to return), and code would usually examine the latter. It is exposed in $? but the shell's control structures implicitly check it under the hood, so your code would look like
if run1.sh; then
if run2.sh; then
if run3.sh; then
...
provided you change them to produce a useful exit code. Though this could be further simplified to
run1.sh || exit
run2.sh || exit
run3.sh || exit
or even to
set -e
run1.sh
run2.sh
run3.sh

test command in unix doesn't print output

Why is there no output to the command test 3 -lt 6 in the unix terminal? Shouldn't test output a 0 or a 1?
I did a man test and it says
Exit with the status determined by EXPRESSION
The exit status is not printed, it is just returned. You can test it in if or while, for example
if test 3 -lt 6 ; then
echo ok
else
echo not ok
fi
Moreover, the exit code of the last expression is kept in $?:
test 3 -lt 6; echo $?
test returns an exit status, which is the one that indicates if the test was succesfull. You can get it by reading $? right after executing test or you can use it directly in a control structure, for example:
if test 3 -lt 6
do echo "everything is aaaaalright"
else echo "whaaat?"
fi
Every command in the shell has a return value, not just test. Return values are rairly printed, we test them directly, for example with an if or while statement, or maybe use it in a shortcut with && or ||. Sometimes we might store the return value, which is also available in the variable ?.
The test command is rather ancient. Since you have tagged bash then you might wish to consider using
if (( 3 < 6 )); then
for arithmetic tests, or
if [[ $name == "Fred Bloggs" ]] ; then
for textual or pattern tests.
These are generally more intuitive and less error prone. Like test, (( )) and [[ ]] are commands in their own right, and can be used without if or while. They return 0 (success) on true, and 1 (failure) on false.
By the way, when you do a man test you are actually looking at the doc for the test program. You might be better using man bash or help test.

“set -e” in a function [duplicate]

set -e (or a script starting with #!/bin/sh -e) is extremely useful to automatically bomb out if there is a problem. It saves me having to error check every single command that might fail.
How do I get the equivalent of this inside a function?
For example, I have the following script that exits immediately on error with an error exit status:
#!/bin/sh -e
echo "the following command could fail:"
false
echo "this is after the command that fails"
The output is as expected:
the following command could fail:
Now I'd like to wrap this into a function:
#!/bin/sh -e
my_function() {
echo "the following command could fail:"
false
echo "this is after the command that fails"
}
if ! my_function; then
echo "dealing with the problem"
fi
echo "run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function"
Expected output:
the following command could fail:
dealing with the problem
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function
Actual output:
the following output could fail:
this is after the command that fails
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function
(ie. the function is ignoring set -e)
This presumably is expected behaviour. My question is: how do I get the effect and usefulness of set -e inside a shell function? I'd like to be able to set something up such that I don't have to individually error check every call, but the script will stop on encountering an error. It should unwind the stack as far as is needed until I do check the result, or exit the script itself if I haven't checked it. This is what set -e does already, except it doesn't nest.
I've found the same question asked outside Stack Overflow but no suitable answer.
I eventually went with this, which apparently works. I tried the export method at first, but then found that I needed to export every global (constant) variable the script uses.
Disable set -e, then run the function call inside a subshell that has set -e enabled. Save the exit status of the subshell in a variable, re-enable set -e, then test the var.
f() { echo "a"; false; echo "Should NOT get HERE"; }
# Don't pipe the subshell into anything or we won't be able to see its exit status
set +e ; ( set -e; f ) ; err_status=$?
set -e
## cleaner syntax which POSIX sh doesn't support. Use bash/zsh/ksh/other fancy shells
if ((err_status)) ; then
echo "f returned false: $err_status"
fi
## POSIX-sh features only (e.g. dash, /bin/sh)
if test "$err_status" -ne 0 ; then
echo "f returned false: $err_status"
fi
echo "always print this"
You can't run f as part of a pipeline, or as part of a && of || command list (except as the last command in the pipe or list), or as the condition in an if or while, or other contexts that ignore set -e. This code also can't be in any of those contexts, so if you use this in a function, callers have to use the same subshell / save-exit-status trickery. This use of set -e for semantics similar to throwing/catching exceptions is not really suitable for general use, given the limitations and hard-to-read syntax.
trap err_handler_function ERR has the same limitations as set -e, in that it won't fire for errors in contexts where set -e won't exit on failed commands.
You might think the following would work, but it doesn't:
if ! ( set -e; f );then ##### doesn't work, f runs ignoring -e
echo "f returned false: $?"
fi
set -e doesn't take effect inside the subshell because it remembers that it's inside the condition of an if. I thought being a subshell would change that, but only being in a separate file and running a whole separate shell on it would work.
From documentation of set -e:
When this option is on, if a simple command fails for any of the
reasons listed in Consequences of
Shell Errors or returns an exit status
value > 0, and is not part of the
compound list following a while,
until, or if keyword, and is not a
part of an AND or OR list, and is not
a pipeline preceded by the ! reserved
word, then the shell shall immediately
exit.
In your case, false is a part of a pipeline preceded by ! and a part of if. So the solution is to rewrite your code so that it isn't.
In other words, there's nothing special about functions here. Try:
set -e
! { false; echo hi; }
You may directly use a subshell as your function definition and set it to exit immediately with set -e. This would limit the scope of set -e to the function subshell only and would later avoid switching between set +e and set -e.
In addition, you can use a variable assignment in the if test and then echo the result in an additional else statement.
# use subshell for function definition
f() (
set -exo pipefail
echo a
false
echo Should NOT get HERE
exit 0
)
# next line also works for non-subshell function given by agsamek above
#if ret="$( set -e && f )" ; then
if ret="$( f )" ; then
true
else
echo "$ret"
fi
# prints
# ++ echo a
# ++ false
# a
This is a bit of a kludge, but you can do:
export -f f
if sh -ec f; then
...
This will work if your shell supports export -f (bash does).
Note that this will not terminate the script. The echo
after the false in f will not execute, nor will the body
of the if, but statements after the if will be executed.
If you are using a shell that does not support export -f, you can
get the semantics you want by running sh in the function:
f() { sh -ec '
echo This will execute
false
echo This will not
'
}
Note/Edit: As a commenter pointed out, this answer uses bash, and not sh like the OP used in his question. I missed that detail when I originaly posted an answer. I will leave this answer up anyway since it might be interested to some passerby.
Y'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallll ready for this?
Here's a way to do it with leveraging the DEBUG trap, which runs before each command, and sort of makes errors like the whole exception/try/catch idioms from other languages. Take a look. I've made your example one more 'call' deep.
#!/bin/bash
# Get rid of that disgusting set -e. We don't need it anymore!
# functrace allows RETURN and DEBUG traps to be inherited by each
# subshell and function. Plus, it doesn't suffer from that horrible
# erasure problem that -e and -E suffer from when the command
# is used in a conditional expression.
set -o functrace
# A trap to bubble up the error unless our magic command is encountered
# ('catch=$?' in this case) at which point it stops. Also don't try to
# bubble the error if were not in a function.
trap '{
code=$?
if [[ $code != 0 ]] && [[ $BASH_COMMAND != '\''catch=$?'\'' ]]; then
# If were in a function, return, else exit.
[[ $FUNCNAME ]] && return $code || exit $code
fi
}' DEBUG
my_function() {
my_function2
}
my_function2() {
echo "the following command could fail:"
false
echo "this is after the command that fails"
}
# the || isn't necessary, but the 'catch=$?' is.
my_function || catch=$?
echo "Dealing with the problem with errcode=$catch (⌐■_■)"
echo "run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function"
and the output:
the following command could fail:
Dealing with the problem with errcode=1 (⌐■_■)
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function
I haven't tested this in the wild, but off the top of my head, there are a bunch of pros:
It's actually not that slow. I've ran the script in a tight loop with and without the functrace option, and times are very close to each other under 10 000 iterations.
You could expand on this DEBUG trap to print a stack trace without doing that whole looping over $FUNCNAME and $BASH_LINENO nonsense. You kinda get it for free (besides actually doing an echo line).
Don't have to worry about that shopt -s inherit_errexit gotcha.
Join all commands in your function with the && operator. It's not too much trouble and will give the result you want.
This is by design and POSIX specification. We can read in man bash:
If a compound command or shell function executes in a context where -e is being ignored, none of the commands executed within the compound command or function body will be affected by the -e setting, even if -e is set and a command returns a failure status. If a compound command or shell function sets -e while executing in a context where -e is ignored, that setting will not have any effect until the compound command or the command containing the function call completes.
therefore you should avoid relying on set -e within functions.
Given the following exampleAustin Group:
set -e
start() {
some_server
echo some_server started successfully
}
start || echo >&2 some_server failed
the set -e is ignored within the function, because the function is a command in an AND-OR list other than the last.
The above behaviour is specified and required by POSIX (see: Desired Action):
The -e setting shall be ignored when executing the compound list following the while, until, if, or elif reserved word, a pipeline beginning with the ! reserved word, or any command of an AND-OR list other than the last.
I know this isn't what you asked, but you may or may not be aware that the behavior you seek is built into "make". Any part of a "make" process that fails aborts the run. It's a wholly different way of "programming", though, than shell scripting.
You will need to call your function in a sub shell (inside brackets ()) to achieve this.
I think you want to write your script like this:
#!/bin/sh -e
my_function() {
echo "the following command could fail:"
false
echo "this is after the command that fails"
}
(my_function)
if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
echo "dealing with the problem"
fi
echo "run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function"
Then the output is (as desired):
the following command could fail:
dealing with the problem
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function
If a subshell isn't an option (say you need to do something crazy like set a variable) then you can just check every single command that might fail and deal with it by appending || return $?. This causes the function to return the error code on failure.
It's ugly, but it works
#!/bin/sh
set -e
my_function() {
echo "the following command could fail:"
false || return $?
echo "this is after the command that fails"
}
if ! my_function; then
echo "dealing with the problem"
fi
echo "run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function"
gives
the following command could fail:
dealing with the problem
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function

How do I get the effect and usefulness of "set -e" inside a shell function?

set -e (or a script starting with #!/bin/sh -e) is extremely useful to automatically bomb out if there is a problem. It saves me having to error check every single command that might fail.
How do I get the equivalent of this inside a function?
For example, I have the following script that exits immediately on error with an error exit status:
#!/bin/sh -e
echo "the following command could fail:"
false
echo "this is after the command that fails"
The output is as expected:
the following command could fail:
Now I'd like to wrap this into a function:
#!/bin/sh -e
my_function() {
echo "the following command could fail:"
false
echo "this is after the command that fails"
}
if ! my_function; then
echo "dealing with the problem"
fi
echo "run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function"
Expected output:
the following command could fail:
dealing with the problem
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function
Actual output:
the following output could fail:
this is after the command that fails
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function
(ie. the function is ignoring set -e)
This presumably is expected behaviour. My question is: how do I get the effect and usefulness of set -e inside a shell function? I'd like to be able to set something up such that I don't have to individually error check every call, but the script will stop on encountering an error. It should unwind the stack as far as is needed until I do check the result, or exit the script itself if I haven't checked it. This is what set -e does already, except it doesn't nest.
I've found the same question asked outside Stack Overflow but no suitable answer.
I eventually went with this, which apparently works. I tried the export method at first, but then found that I needed to export every global (constant) variable the script uses.
Disable set -e, then run the function call inside a subshell that has set -e enabled. Save the exit status of the subshell in a variable, re-enable set -e, then test the var.
f() { echo "a"; false; echo "Should NOT get HERE"; }
# Don't pipe the subshell into anything or we won't be able to see its exit status
set +e ; ( set -e; f ) ; err_status=$?
set -e
## cleaner syntax which POSIX sh doesn't support. Use bash/zsh/ksh/other fancy shells
if ((err_status)) ; then
echo "f returned false: $err_status"
fi
## POSIX-sh features only (e.g. dash, /bin/sh)
if test "$err_status" -ne 0 ; then
echo "f returned false: $err_status"
fi
echo "always print this"
You can't run f as part of a pipeline, or as part of a && of || command list (except as the last command in the pipe or list), or as the condition in an if or while, or other contexts that ignore set -e. This code also can't be in any of those contexts, so if you use this in a function, callers have to use the same subshell / save-exit-status trickery. This use of set -e for semantics similar to throwing/catching exceptions is not really suitable for general use, given the limitations and hard-to-read syntax.
trap err_handler_function ERR has the same limitations as set -e, in that it won't fire for errors in contexts where set -e won't exit on failed commands.
You might think the following would work, but it doesn't:
if ! ( set -e; f );then ##### doesn't work, f runs ignoring -e
echo "f returned false: $?"
fi
set -e doesn't take effect inside the subshell because it remembers that it's inside the condition of an if. I thought being a subshell would change that, but only being in a separate file and running a whole separate shell on it would work.
From documentation of set -e:
When this option is on, if a simple command fails for any of the
reasons listed in Consequences of
Shell Errors or returns an exit status
value > 0, and is not part of the
compound list following a while,
until, or if keyword, and is not a
part of an AND or OR list, and is not
a pipeline preceded by the ! reserved
word, then the shell shall immediately
exit.
In your case, false is a part of a pipeline preceded by ! and a part of if. So the solution is to rewrite your code so that it isn't.
In other words, there's nothing special about functions here. Try:
set -e
! { false; echo hi; }
You may directly use a subshell as your function definition and set it to exit immediately with set -e. This would limit the scope of set -e to the function subshell only and would later avoid switching between set +e and set -e.
In addition, you can use a variable assignment in the if test and then echo the result in an additional else statement.
# use subshell for function definition
f() (
set -exo pipefail
echo a
false
echo Should NOT get HERE
exit 0
)
# next line also works for non-subshell function given by agsamek above
#if ret="$( set -e && f )" ; then
if ret="$( f )" ; then
true
else
echo "$ret"
fi
# prints
# ++ echo a
# ++ false
# a
This is a bit of a kludge, but you can do:
export -f f
if sh -ec f; then
...
This will work if your shell supports export -f (bash does).
Note that this will not terminate the script. The echo
after the false in f will not execute, nor will the body
of the if, but statements after the if will be executed.
If you are using a shell that does not support export -f, you can
get the semantics you want by running sh in the function:
f() { sh -ec '
echo This will execute
false
echo This will not
'
}
Note/Edit: As a commenter pointed out, this answer uses bash, and not sh like the OP used in his question. I missed that detail when I originaly posted an answer. I will leave this answer up anyway since it might be interested to some passerby.
Y'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallll ready for this?
Here's a way to do it with leveraging the DEBUG trap, which runs before each command, and sort of makes errors like the whole exception/try/catch idioms from other languages. Take a look. I've made your example one more 'call' deep.
#!/bin/bash
# Get rid of that disgusting set -e. We don't need it anymore!
# functrace allows RETURN and DEBUG traps to be inherited by each
# subshell and function. Plus, it doesn't suffer from that horrible
# erasure problem that -e and -E suffer from when the command
# is used in a conditional expression.
set -o functrace
# A trap to bubble up the error unless our magic command is encountered
# ('catch=$?' in this case) at which point it stops. Also don't try to
# bubble the error if were not in a function.
trap '{
code=$?
if [[ $code != 0 ]] && [[ $BASH_COMMAND != '\''catch=$?'\'' ]]; then
# If were in a function, return, else exit.
[[ $FUNCNAME ]] && return $code || exit $code
fi
}' DEBUG
my_function() {
my_function2
}
my_function2() {
echo "the following command could fail:"
false
echo "this is after the command that fails"
}
# the || isn't necessary, but the 'catch=$?' is.
my_function || catch=$?
echo "Dealing with the problem with errcode=$catch (⌐■_■)"
echo "run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function"
and the output:
the following command could fail:
Dealing with the problem with errcode=1 (⌐■_■)
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function
I haven't tested this in the wild, but off the top of my head, there are a bunch of pros:
It's actually not that slow. I've ran the script in a tight loop with and without the functrace option, and times are very close to each other under 10 000 iterations.
You could expand on this DEBUG trap to print a stack trace without doing that whole looping over $FUNCNAME and $BASH_LINENO nonsense. You kinda get it for free (besides actually doing an echo line).
Don't have to worry about that shopt -s inherit_errexit gotcha.
Join all commands in your function with the && operator. It's not too much trouble and will give the result you want.
This is by design and POSIX specification. We can read in man bash:
If a compound command or shell function executes in a context where -e is being ignored, none of the commands executed within the compound command or function body will be affected by the -e setting, even if -e is set and a command returns a failure status. If a compound command or shell function sets -e while executing in a context where -e is ignored, that setting will not have any effect until the compound command or the command containing the function call completes.
therefore you should avoid relying on set -e within functions.
Given the following exampleAustin Group:
set -e
start() {
some_server
echo some_server started successfully
}
start || echo >&2 some_server failed
the set -e is ignored within the function, because the function is a command in an AND-OR list other than the last.
The above behaviour is specified and required by POSIX (see: Desired Action):
The -e setting shall be ignored when executing the compound list following the while, until, if, or elif reserved word, a pipeline beginning with the ! reserved word, or any command of an AND-OR list other than the last.
I know this isn't what you asked, but you may or may not be aware that the behavior you seek is built into "make". Any part of a "make" process that fails aborts the run. It's a wholly different way of "programming", though, than shell scripting.
You will need to call your function in a sub shell (inside brackets ()) to achieve this.
I think you want to write your script like this:
#!/bin/sh -e
my_function() {
echo "the following command could fail:"
false
echo "this is after the command that fails"
}
(my_function)
if [ $? -ne 0 ] ; then
echo "dealing with the problem"
fi
echo "run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function"
Then the output is (as desired):
the following command could fail:
dealing with the problem
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function
If a subshell isn't an option (say you need to do something crazy like set a variable) then you can just check every single command that might fail and deal with it by appending || return $?. This causes the function to return the error code on failure.
It's ugly, but it works
#!/bin/sh
set -e
my_function() {
echo "the following command could fail:"
false || return $?
echo "this is after the command that fails"
}
if ! my_function; then
echo "dealing with the problem"
fi
echo "run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function"
gives
the following command could fail:
dealing with the problem
run this all the time regardless of the success of my_function

In a Bash script, how can I exit the entire script if a certain condition occurs?

I'm writing a script in Bash to test some code. However, it seems silly to run the tests if compiling the code fails in the first place, in which case I'll just abort the tests.
Is there a way I can do this without wrapping the entire script inside of a while loop and using breaks? Something like a dun dun dun goto?
Try this statement:
exit 1
Replace 1 with appropriate error codes. See also Exit Codes With Special Meanings.
Use set -e
#!/bin/bash
set -e
/bin/command-that-fails
/bin/command-that-fails2
The script will terminate after the first line that fails (returns nonzero exit code). In this case, command-that-fails2 will not run.
If you were to check the return status of every single command, your script would look like this:
#!/bin/bash
# I'm assuming you're using make
cd /project-dir
make
if [[ $? -ne 0 ]] ; then
exit 1
fi
cd /project-dir2
make
if [[ $? -ne 0 ]] ; then
exit 1
fi
With set -e it would look like:
#!/bin/bash
set -e
cd /project-dir
make
cd /project-dir2
make
Any command that fails will cause the entire script to fail and return an exit status you can check with $?. If your script is very long or you're building a lot of stuff it's going to get pretty ugly if you add return status checks everywhere.
A SysOps guy once taught me the Three-Fingered Claw technique:
yell() { echo "$0: $*" >&2; }
die() { yell "$*"; exit 111; }
try() { "$#" || die "cannot $*"; }
These functions are *NIX OS and shell flavor-robust. Put them at the beginning of your script (bash or otherwise), try() your statement and code on.
Explanation
(based on flying sheep comment).
yell: print the script name and all arguments to stderr:
$0 is the path to the script ;
$* are all arguments.
>&2 means > redirect stdout to & pipe 2. pipe 1 would be stdout itself.
die does the same as yell, but exits with a non-0 exit status, which means “fail”.
try uses the || (boolean OR), which only evaluates the right side if the left one failed.
$# is all arguments again, but different.
If you will invoke the script with source, you can use return <x> where <x> will be the script exit status (use a non-zero value for error or false). But if you invoke an executable script (i.e., directly with its filename), the return statement will result in a complain (error message "return: can only `return' from a function or sourced script").
If exit <x> is used instead, when the script is invoked with source, it will result in exiting the shell that started the script, but an executable script will just terminate, as expected.
To handle either case in the same script, you can use
return <x> 2> /dev/null || exit <x>
This will handle whichever invocation may be suitable. That is assuming you will use this statement at the script's top level. I would advise against directly exiting the script from within a function.
Note: <x> is supposed to be just a number.
I often include a function called run() to handle errors. Every call I want to make is passed to this function so the entire script exits when a failure is hit. The advantage of this over the set -e solution is that the script doesn't exit silently when a line fails, and can tell you what the problem is. In the following example, the 3rd line is not executed because the script exits at the call to false.
function run() {
cmd_output=$(eval $1)
return_value=$?
if [ $return_value != 0 ]; then
echo "Command $1 failed"
exit -1
else
echo "output: $cmd_output"
echo "Command succeeded."
fi
return $return_value
}
run "date"
run "false"
run "date"
Instead of if construct, you can leverage the short-circuit evaluation:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
echo $[1+1]
echo $[2/0] # division by 0 but execution of script proceeds
echo $[3+1]
(echo $[4/0]) || exit $? # script halted with code 1 returned from `echo`
echo $[5+1]
Note the pair of parentheses which is necessary because of priority of alternation operator. $? is a special variable set to exit code of most recently called command.
I have the same question but cannot ask it because it would be a duplicate.
The accepted answer, using exit, does not work when the script is a bit more complicated. If you use a background process to check for the condition, exit only exits that process, as it runs in a sub-shell. To kill the script, you have to explicitly kill it (at least that is the only way I know).
Here is a little script on how to do it:
#!/bin/bash
boom() {
while true; do sleep 1.2; echo boom; done
}
f() {
echo Hello
N=0
while
((N++ <10))
do
sleep 1
echo $N
# ((N > 5)) && exit 4 # does not work
((N > 5)) && { kill -9 $$; exit 5; } # works
done
}
boom &
f &
while true; do sleep 0.5; echo beep; done
This is a better answer but still incomplete a I really don't know how to get rid of the boom part.
You can close your program by program name on follow way:
for soft exit do
pkill -9 -x programname # Replace "programmname" by your programme
for hard exit do
pkill -15 -x programname # Replace "programmname" by your programme
If you like to know how to evaluate condition for closing a program, you need to customize your question.
#!/bin/bash -x
# exit and report the failure if any command fails
exit_trap () { # ---- (1)
local lc="$BASH_COMMAND" rc=$?
echo "Command [$lc] exited with code [$rc]"
}
trap exit_trap EXIT # ---- (2)
set -e # ---- (3)
Explanation:
This question is also about how to write clean code. Let's divide the above script into multiple parts:
Part - 1:
exit_trap is a function that gets called when any step failed and captures the last executed step using $BASH_COMMAND and captures the return code of that step. This is the function that can be used for any clean-up, similar to shutdownhooks
The command currently being executed or about to be executed, unless the shell is executing a command as the result of a trap, in which case it is the command executing at the time of the trap.
Doc.
Part - 2:
trap [action] [signal]
Register the trap action (here exit_trap function) in case of EXIT signal.
Part - 3:
Exit immediately if a sequence of one or more commands returns a non-zero status. The shell does not exit if the command that fails is part of the command list immediately following a while or until keyword, part of the test in an if statement, part of any command executed in a && or || list except the command following the final && or ||, any command in a pipeline but the last, or if the command’s return status is being inverted with !. If a compound command other than a subshell returns a non-zero status because a command failed while -e was being ignored, the shell does not exit. A trap on ERR, if set, is executed before the shell exits.
Doc.
Part - 4:
You can create a common.sh file and source it in all of your scripts.
source common.sh

Resources