Related
Original Title: Indirect parameter substitution breaks when the script is sourced (zsh)
zsh 5.7.1 (x86_64-apple-darwin19.0)
GNU bash, version 4.4.20(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
I’m developing a shell script on a Mac and I’m trying to keep it portable between bash & zsh, so array indexing is a consideration. I know that I can set KSH_ARRAYS to get indexing to start at 0, but I decided to query the OS for the shell that’s in use and set the start index accordingly, which led to the issue described below.
It made sense (to me anyway!) to use indirect expansion, which is what led to the problem. Consider the script indirect.sh:
#! /bin/bash
declare -r ARRAY_START_BASH=0
declare -r ARRAY_START_ZSH=1
declare -r SHELL_BASH=0
declare -r SHELL_ZSH=1
# Indirect expansion is used to reference the values of the variables declared
# in this case statement e.g. ${!ARRAY_START}
case $(basename $SHELL) in
"bash" )
declare -r SHELL_ID=SHELL_BASH
declare -r ARRAY_START=ARRAY_START_BASH
;;
"zsh" )
declare -r SHELL_ID=SHELL_ZSH
declare -r ARRAY_START=ARRAY_START_ZSH
;;
* )
return 1
;;
esac
echo "Shell ID: ${!SHELL_ID} Index arrays from: ${!ARRAY_START}"
It works fine when run from the command line while in the same directory:
<my home> ~ % echo "$(./indirect.sh)"
Shell ID: 1 Index arrays from: 1
Problems arise when I source the script:
<my home> ~ % echo "$(. ~/indirect.sh)"
/Users/<me>/indirect.sh:28: bad substitution
I don’t understand why sourcing the script changes the behavior of the parameter expansion.
Is this expected behavior? If so, I’d be grateful if someone could explain it and hopefully, offer a work around.
The problem described in the original post has nothing to do with indirect expansion. The difference in behavior is a result of different shells being invoked depending on whether the script is “executed” or “sourced”. These differences reveal the basic flaw in deriving the shell from the $SHELL variable that underpins the script's design. If the shell defined in $SHELL does not match the shebang, the script will fail either when sourced or executed. An explanation follows.
Indirect expansion doesn’t offer value in the given scenario because values could just as easily be assigned directly. They’ll have to be assigned that way regardless given the different syntax used for indirect expansion between shells. In fact, other syntax differences between shells makes the entire premise for detecting the shell moot! However, putting that aside, the difference in behavior is a result of different shells being invoked based on whether the script is “executed” or “sourced”. The behavior of sourcing is well documented with numerous explanations on the web, but for context here’s how it works:
Executing a Script
Use the “./“ syntax to execute a script.
When run this way, the script executes in a sub-shell. Any changes the
script makes to it’s shell are applied to the sub-shell, not the shell
in which the script was launched, so those changes are lost when the
shell exits because the sub-shell in which it executed is destroyed as
well. For example, if the script changes the working directory, it
does so in the sub-shell. The working directory of the main shell that
launched the script is unchanged when the script terminates. If you
want to make changes to the shell in which the script was launched, it
must be sourced.
Sourcing a Script
Use the “source “ syntax to source a
script. When run this way, the script essentially becomes an argument
for the source command, which handles invoking the appropriate
execution. Some shells (e.g. ksh) use a single period “.” instead of
“source”.
When a script is executed with the “./“ syntax, the shebang at the top of the file is used to determine which shell to use. When a script is sourced, the shebang is ignored and the shell in which the script is launched is used instead. Also note that the period that appears in the “./“ command syntax used to execute a script, is not related to the period that’s occasionally used as an alias for the source command.
The script in the post uses bash in the shebang statement, so it works when executed because it’s run using bash. When it’s sourced from zsh, it encounters the incorrect indirect expansion syntax:
“${!A_VAR}"
The correct syntax is:
"${(P)A_VAR}"
However, correcting the syntax won’t help because it will then fail when executed. The shebang will invoke bash and the syntax will be wrong again. That renders indirection useless for accessing a variable designed to indicate the shell in use. More importantly, a design based on querying an environment variable for the shell is flawed due to differences in the shell that’s ultimately used depending on whether the script is executed or sourced.
To add to your answer (what I'm going to say is too long for a comment), I can not think of any application, why your script could be useful if not sourced. Actually, I came accross the need of such a script by myself in exactly one occasion:
Since I use as interactive shell not only zsh, but also sometimes bash, so I have written my .zshrc and .bashrc to set up everything (including defining variables and shell functions for interactive use). In order to safe work,
I try to put code which works under both bash and zsh into a single file (say: .commonrc), and my .zshrc and .bashrc have inside them a
source .commonrc
While many things are so different in bash and zsh, that I can't put them into .commonrc, some can, provided I do some tweaking. One reason for headache is obviously the different indexing of arrays, which you seemingly try to solve. So I have also a similar feature. However, I don't nee ca case construct for this. Instead, my .bashrc looks like this (using your naming of the variables):
...
declare -r ARRAY_START=0
source .commonrc
...
and my .zshrc looks like this:
...
declare -r ARRAY_START=1
source .commonrc
...
Since it does not happen that the .bashrc is run from a zsh and vice versa, I don't need to query what kind of shell I have.
I have a functions.sh script with a bunch of global functions that i want to use in other scripts. this functions script is written in bash (#!/bin/bash)
Those many scripts had been written over the years, so the older ones or with the #!/bin/sh (which is different from #!/bin/bash in solaris).
My question here is, when you call the functions.sh file (with . /path/to/functions.sh) from within a sh (not bash) script, is the shebang line of "functions.sh" interpreted ?
In a nutshell, can you call a bash written function script from another shell-type script (with proper shebang lines in both) ?
Thanks !
As long as you want to use the function you need to source the scripts and not execute it
source /path/to/functions.sh
or as per the POSIX standards, do
. ./path/to/functions.sh
from within the sh script, which is equivalent to including the contents of function.sh in the file at the point where the command is run.
You need to understand the difference between sourcing and executing a script.
Sourcing runs the script from the parent-shell in which the script is
invoked; all the environment variables, functions are retained until the
parent-shell is terminated (the terminal is closed, or the variables
are reset or unset),
Execute forks a new shell from the parent shell and those variables,functions
including your export variables are retained only in the sub-shell's
environment and destroyed at the end of script termination.
When you source a file, the shebang in that file is ignored (it is not on the first line since it is included in the caller script and is seen as comment).
When you include an old script with #!/bin/sh it will be handled as the shell of the caller. Most things written in /bin/sh will work in bash.
When you are running a sh or ksh script and you include (source) a bash file, all bash specific code will give problems.
I have a shell script on a mac (OSX 10.9) named msii810161816_TMP_CMD with the following content.
matlab
When I execute it, I get
./msii810161816_TMP_CMD: line 1: matlab: command not found
However, when I type matlab into the shell directly it starts as normal. How can it be that the same command works inside the shell but not inside a shell script? I copy-pasted the command directly from the script into the shell and it worked ...
PS: When I replace the content of the script with
echo matlab
I get the desired result, so I can definitely execute the shell script (I use ./msii810161816_TMP_CMD)
Thanks guys!
By default, aliases are not expanded in non-interactive shells, which is what shell scripts are. Aliases are intended to be used by a person at the keyboard as a typing aid.
If your goal is to not have to type the full path to matlab, instead of creating an alias you should modify your $PATH. Add /Applications/MATLAB_R2014a.app/bin to your $PATH environment variable and then both you and your shell scripts will be able to simply say
matlab
This is because, as commenters have stated, the PATH variable inside of the shell executing the script does not include the directory containing the matlab executable.
When a command name is used, like "matlab", your shell looks at every directory in the PATH in order, searching for one containing an executable file with the name "matlab".
Without going into too much detail, the PATH is determined by the shell being invoked.
When you execute bash, it combines a global setting for basic directories that must be in the PATH with any settings in your ~/.bashrc which alter the PATH.
Most likely, you are not running your script in a shell where the PATH includes matlab's directory.
To verify this, you can take the following steps:
Run which matlab. This will show you the path to the matlab executable.
Run echo "$PATH". This will show you your current PATH settings. Note that the directory from which matlab is included in the colon-separated list.
Add a line to the beginning of your script that does echo "$PATH". Note that the directory from which matlab is not included.
To resolve this, ensure that your script is executed in a shell that has the needed directory in the PATH.
You can do this a few ways, but the two most highly recommended ones would be
Add a shebang line to the start of your script. Assuming that you want to run it with bash, do #!/bin/bash or whatever the path to your bash interpreter is.
The shebang line is not actually fully standardized by POSIX, so BSD-derived systems like OSX will happily handle multiple arguments to the shebanged executable, while Linux systems pass at most one argument.
In spite of this, the shebang is an easy and simple way to document what should be used to execute the script, so it's a good solution.
Explicitly invoke your script with a shell as its interpreter, as in bash myscript.sh or tcsh myscript.sh or even sh myscript.sh
This is not incompatible with using a shebang line, and using both is a common practice.
I believe that the default shell on OSX is always bash, so you should start by trying with that.
If these instructions don't help, then you'll have to dig deeper to find out why or how the PATH is being altered between the calling context and the script's internal context.
Ultimately, this is almost certainly the source of your issue.
I am using Bash
$ echo $SHELL
/bin/bash
and starting about a year ago I stopped using Shebangs with my Bash scripts. Can
I benefit from using #!/bin/sh or #!/bin/bash?
Update: In certain situations a file is only treated as a script with the
Shebang, example
$ cat foo.sh
ls
$ cat bar.sh
#!/bin/sh
ls
$ file foo.sh bar.sh
foo.sh: ASCII text
bar.sh: POSIX shell script, ASCII text executable
On UNIX-like systems, you should always start scripts with a shebang line. The system call execve (which is responsible for starting programs) relies on an executable having either an executable header or a shebang line.
From FreeBSD's execve manual page:
The execve() system call transforms the calling process into a new
process. The new process is constructed from an ordinary file, whose
name is pointed to by path, called the new process file.
[...]
This file is
either an executable object file, or a file of data for an interpreter.
[...]
An interpreter file begins with a line of the form:
#! interpreter [arg]
When an interpreter file is execve'd, the system actually execve's the
specified interpreter. If the optional arg is specified, it becomes the
first argument to the interpreter, and the name of the originally
execve'd file becomes the second argument
Similarly from the Linux manual page:
execve() executes the program pointed to by filename. filename must be
either a binary executable, or a script starting with a line of the
form:
#! interpreter [optional-arg]
In fact, if a file doesn't have the right "magic number" in it's header, (like an ELF header or #!), execve will fail with the ENOEXEC error (again from FreeBSD's execve manpage):
[ENOEXEC] The new process file has the appropriate access
permission, but has an invalid magic number in its
header.
If the file has executable permissions, but no shebang line but does seem to be a text file, the behaviour depends on the shell that you're running in.
Most shells seem to start a new instance of themselves and feed it the file, see below.
Since there is no guarantee that the script was actually written for that shell, this can work or fail spectacularly.
From tcsh(1):
On systems which do not understand the `#!' script interpreter conven‐
tion the shell may be compiled to emulate it; see the version shell
variable. If so, the shell checks the first line of the file to see if
it is of the form `#!interpreter arg ...'. If it is, the shell starts
interpreter with the given args and feeds the file to it on standard
input.
From FreeBSD's sh(1):
If the program is not a normal executable file (i.e., if it
does not begin with the “magic number” whose ASCII representation is
“#!”, resulting in an ENOEXEC return value from execve(2)) but appears to
be a text file, the shell will run a new instance of sh to interpret it.
From bash(1):
If this execution fails because the file is not in executable format,
and the file is not a directory, it is assumed to be a shell script, a
file containing shell commands. A subshell is spawned to execute it.
You cannot always depend on the location of a non-standard program like bash. I've seen bash in /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/fsf/bin and /opt/gnu/bin to name a few.
So it is generally a good idea to use env;
#!/usr/bin/env bash
If you want your script to be portable, use sh instead of bash.
#!/bin/sh
While standards like POSIX do not guarantee the absolute paths of standard utilities, most UNIX-like systems seem to have sh in /bin and env in /usr/bin.
Scripts should always begin with a shebang line. If a script doesn't start with this, then it may be executed by the current shell. But that means that if someone who uses your script is running a different shell than you do, the script may behave differently. Also, it means the script can't be run directly from a program (e.g. the C exec() system call, or find -exec), it has to be run from a shell.
You might be interested in an early description by Dennis M Ritchie (dmr) who invented the #! :
From uucp Thu Jan 10 01:37:58 1980
.>From dmr Thu Jan 10 04:25:49 1980 remote from research
The system has been changed so that if a file
being executed begins with the magic characters #! , the rest of the
line is understood to be the name of an interpreter for the executed
file. Previously (and in fact still) the shell did much of this job;
it automatically executed itself on a text file with executable mode
when the text file's name was typed as a command. Putting the facility
into the system gives the following benefits.
1) It makes shell scripts more like real executable files, because
they can be the subject of 'exec.'
2) If you do a 'ps' while such a command is running, its real name
appears instead of 'sh'. Likewise, accounting is done on the basis of
the real name.
3) Shell scripts can be set-user-ID.
4) It is simpler to have alternate shells available; e.g. if you like
the Berkeley csh there is no question about which shell is to
interpret a file.
5) It will allow other interpreters to fit in more smoothly.
To take advantage of this wonderful opportunity, put
#! /bin/sh
at the left margin of the first line of your shell scripts. Blanks
after ! are OK. Use a complete pathname (no search is done). At the
moment the whole line is restricted to 16 characters but this limit
will be raised.
Hope this helps
If you write bash scripts, i.e. non portable scripts containing bashisms, you should keep using the #!/bin/bash shebang just to be sure the correct interpreter is used. You should not replace the shebang by #!/bin/sh as bash will run in POSIX mode so some of your scripts might behave differently.
If you write portable scripts, i.e. scripts only using POSIX utilities and their supported options, you might keep using #!/bin/sh on your system (i.e. one where /bin/sh is a POSIX shell).
It you write stricly conforming POSIX scripts to be distributed in various platforms and you are sure they will only be launched from a POSIX conforming system, you might and probably should remove the shebang as stated in the POSIX standard:
As it stands, a strictly conforming application must not use "#!" as the first two characters of the file.
The rationale is the POSIX standard doesn't mandate /bin/sh to be the POSIX compliant shell so there is no portable way to specify its path in a shebang. In this third case, to be able to use the 'find -exec' syntax on systems unable to run a shebangless still executable script, you can simply specify the interpreter in the find command itself, eg:
find /tmp -name "*.foo" -exec sh -c 'myscript "$#"' sh {} +
Here, as sh is specified without a path, the POSIX shell will be run.
The header is useful since it specifies which shell to use when running the script. For example, #!/bin/zsh would change the shell to zsh instead of bash, where you can use different commands.
For example, this page specifies the following:
Using #!/bin/sh, the default Bourne shell in most commercial variants
of UNIX, makes the script portable to non-Linux machines, though you
sacrifice Bash-specific features ...
TL;DR: always in scripts; please not in source'd scripts
Always in your parent
FYI: POSIX compliant is #!/bin/bash, not #!/bin/sh
You want to clarify this so that nothing else overrides the interpreter your script is made for.
You don't want a user at the terminal using zsh to have trouble if your script was written for POSIX bash scripts.
You don't want to run source in your #!/bin/bash unrecognized by #!/bin/sh, someone in an sh terminal have it break the script because it is expecting the simple/POSIX . for including source'd files
You don't want e.g. zsh features - not available in other interpreters - to make their way into your bash code. So, put #!/bin/bash in all your script headers. Then, any of your zsh habits in your script will break so you know to remove them before your roll-out.
It's probably best, especially so POSIX-compliant scripts don't break in a terminal like zsh.
Not expected for included source scripts
FYI: POSIX compliant for sourcing text in a BASH script is ., not source
You can use either for sourcing, but I'll do POSIX.
Standard "shebanging" for all scripting:
parent.sh:
#!/bin/bash
echo "My script here"
. sourced.sh # child/source script, below
sourced.sh:
echo "I am a sourced child script"
But, you are allowed to do this...
sourced.sh: (optional)
#!/bin/bash
echo "I am a sourced child script"
There, the #!/bin/bash "shebang" will be ignored. The main reason I would use it is for syntax highlighting in my text editor. However, in the "proper" scripting world, it is expected that your rolled-out source'd script will not contain the shebang.
In addition to what the others said, the shebang also enables syntax highlighting in some text editors, for example vim.
$SHELL and #!/bin/bash or #!/bin/sh are different.
To start, #!/bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on most Linux systems (on Ubuntu it is now /bin/dash)
But on whether to start with /bin/sh or /bin/bash:
Bash and sh are two different shells. Basically bash is sh, with more
features and better syntax. Most commands work the same, but they are
different.
Just assume if you're writing a bash script, stick with /bin/bash and not /sh because problems can arise.
$SHELL does not necessarily reflect the currently running shell.
Instead, $SHELL is the user's preferred shell, which is typically the
one set in /etc/passwd. If you start a different shell after logging
in, you can not necessarily expect $SHELL to match the current shell
anymore.
This is mine for example, but it could also be /root:/bin/dash or /root:/bin/sh depending on which shell you have input in passwd. So to avoid any problems, keep the passwd file at /bin/bash and then using $SHELL vs. #!/bin/bash wouldn't matter as much.
root#kali:~/Desktop# cat /etc/passwd
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash
Sources:
http://shebang.mintern.net/bourne-is-not-bash-or-read-echo-and-backslash/
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/43499/difference-between-echo-shell-and-which-bash
http://man.cx/sh
http://man.cx/bash
Why do all script files start with
#!/bin/sh
or with
#!/bin/csh
Is that required? What's the purpose of this? And what's the difference between the two?
This is known as a Shebang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_(Unix)
#!interpreter [optional-arg]
A shebang is only relevant when a script has the execute permission (e.g. chmod u+x script.sh).
When a shell executes the script it will use the specified interpreter.
Example:
#!/bin/bash
# file: foo.sh
echo 1
$ chmod u+x foo.sh
$ ./foo.sh
1
The #! line tells the kernel (specifically, the implementation of the execve system call) that this program is written in an interpreted language; the absolute pathname that follows identifies the interpreter. Programs compiled to machine code begin with a different byte sequence -- on most modern Unixes, 7f 45 4c 46 (^?ELF) that identifies them as such.
You can put an absolute path to any program you want after the #!, as long as that program is not itself a #! script. The kernel rewrites an invocation of
./script arg1 arg2 arg3 ...
where ./script starts with, say, #! /usr/bin/perl, as if the command line had actually been
/usr/bin/perl ./script arg1 arg2 arg3
Or, as you have seen, you can use #! /bin/sh to write a script intended to be interpreted by sh.
The #! line is only processed if you directly invoke the script (./script on the command line); the file must also be executable (chmod +x script). If you do sh ./script the #! line is not necessary (and will be ignored if present), and the file does not have to be executable. The point of the feature is to allow you to directly invoke interpreted-language programs without having to know what language they are written in. (Do grep '^#!' /usr/bin/* -- you will discover that a great many stock programs are in fact using this feature.)
Here are some rules for using this feature:
The #! must be the very first two bytes in the file. In particular, the file must be in an ASCII-compatible encoding (e.g. UTF-8 will work, but UTF-16 won't) and must not start with a "byte order mark", or the kernel will not recognize it as a #! script.
The path after #! must be an absolute path (starts with /). It cannot contain space, tab, or newline characters.
It is good style, but not required, to put a space between the #! and the /. Do not put more than one space there.
You cannot put shell variables on the #! line, they will not be expanded.
You can put one command-line argument after the absolute path, separated from it by a single space. Like the absolute path, this argument cannot contain space, tab, or newline characters. Sometimes this is necessary to get things to work (#! /usr/bin/awk -f), sometimes it's just useful (#! /usr/bin/perl -Tw). Unfortunately, you cannot put two or more arguments after the absolute path.
Some people will tell you to use #! /usr/bin/env interpreter instead of #! /absolute/path/to/interpreter. This is almost always a mistake. It makes your program's behavior depend on the $PATH variable of the user who invokes the script. And not all systems have env in the first place.
Programs that need setuid or setgid privileges can't use #!; they have to be compiled to machine code. (If you don't know what setuid is, don't worry about this.)
Regarding csh, it relates to sh roughly as Nutrimat Advanced Tea Substitute does to tea. It has (or rather had; modern implementations of sh have caught up) a number of advantages over sh for interactive usage, but using it (or its descendant tcsh) for scripting is almost always a mistake. If you're new to shell scripting in general, I strongly recommend you ignore it and focus on sh. If you are using a csh relative as your login shell, switch to bash or zsh, so that the interactive command language will be the same as the scripting language you're learning.
This defines what shell (command interpreter) you are using for interpreting/running your script. Each shell is slightly different in the way it interacts with the user and executes scripts (programs).
When you type in a command at the Unix prompt, you are interacting with the shell.
E.g., #!/bin/csh refers to the C-shell, /bin/tcsh the t-shell, /bin/bash the bash shell, etc.
You can tell which interactive shell you are using the
echo $SHELL
command, or alternatively
env | grep -i shell
You can change your command shell with the chsh command.
Each has a slightly different command set and way of assigning variables and its own set of programming constructs. For instance the if-else statement with bash looks different that the one in the C-shell.
This page might be of interest as it "translates" between bash and tcsh commands/syntax.
Using the directive in the shell script allows you to run programs using a different shell. For instance I use the tcsh shell interactively, but often run bash scripts using /bin/bash in the script file.
Aside:
This concept extends to other scripts too. For instance if you program in Python you'd put
#!/usr/bin/python
at the top of your Python program