One of my biggest aggravations with working in bash is the chronically broken command completions.
There are hundreds of programmed command completions, more being written each day, some by the distro (I'm currently using mostly ubuntu linux) or upstream,
and some by people at my company. It's inevitable that at any given time, dozens of them are broken. I accept that.
What I don't accept is when broken command completions prevent me from being able to do filename completion.
Filename completion is essential to my work efficiency; when I can't access it, it's extremely distressing and disruptive to my workflow.
For a while, I simply disabled all command completions, since I judged
that reliable filename completion is more important to me than the value
of all the other command completions combined.
But... then I decided to give them another try, so instead of disabling
them all, I'm blacklisting the ones I know to be broken, one by one, in my .bashrc:
#
# Blacklist for known broken command completions
#
# Command completions prevent vim'ing .jpg files!? Not ok.
complete -r vi
complete -r vim
complete -r view
complete -r google-chrome # google-chrome ./myFil<tab>
# The rest of these are gratuitous strong evil magic
# that can't be killed by "complete -r",
# so stronger good magic "complete -F _minimal" is necessary instead.
complete -F _minimal ci # ci -l ./java<tab> when ./javacpp and ./javarenumber both exist but only javarenumber has been previously checked in
complete -F _minimal alias # alias pppp ~/<tab>
The blacklist works for me, for the most part,
except at that awful moment when I first discover another command completion
is broken, when I'm in the middle of trying to complete a filename quickly.
At that moment I need some kind of "in case of emergency break glass" override mechanism.
What I'm asking for is one of the following:
(a) a way to bind a key/keys to filename completion only, bypassing
programmable command completion
(b) a way to bind a key/keys to
temporarily disable programmable command completion for the current
command that I have partially typed
(c) some other clever
non-intrusive way to get at filename completion at the moment I
discover it's being hidden by a broken programmable command
completion.
Use Alt+/. It completes as a filename rather than through programmable completion.
From man bash:
complete-filename (M-/)
Attempt filename completion on the text before point.
Related
There seems to be quite a lot of information on how to edit and execute a command using your editor using "edit-and-execute-command (C-x C-e)", but what I would like to achieve is take the current shell command, apply certain filtering (using a script) and then return it to prompt for further approval/manual changes before execution. Is this possible with bash?
Latest update based on my experience
The part 0"+y$dd in the following mapping is really something that you should carefully think about and tailor it to your taste/workflow/experience.
For instance, very frequently I've found myself ending up with multiple lines in the buffer, where I only want to execute the one the cursor is on; in this case I can use 0"+y$dd:%d<CR> instead of 0"+y$dd.
And this is just one of the possible scenarios.
Final answer for those who like vim
Set vim as your EDITOR/VISUAL, so that when editing a command line, you will use vim to edit it.
Put au BufEnter /tmp/bash-fc.* nn <Leader>d 0"+y$dd:wq<CR> in your ~/.vimrc file to map Leaderd (which you will rarely use when editing a command) to the action "delete the current line into the + register without the trailing EOL".
you can use either the + or the * register in the mapping above; the ways to paste into the terminal will likely differ; you need the +clipboard option for these registers to be available.
When finished editing a command in the vim editor, hit EscapeLeaderd.
Paste the clipboard into the terminal (this is terminal-dependent).
Original answer
I often need to do the same, and I do it as follows. (I normally use the set -o vi in bash, so points 1 and 2 in the following are different if you use set -o emacs, the default; based on your question it looks like points 1 and 2 are unified in Ctrl+x followed by Ctrl+e, which is harder to type, imho.)
hit Escape to be in normal mode,
hit v to enter the editor to edit the command,
edit the command as I like,
(This is where you ask the question.)
hit Escape0"+y$dd:wq,
Note: 0"+y$, not simply "+yy, as the latter would copy the newline too, and this would result in executing the command upon pasting it in the command line,
paste the clipboard on the command line
how to do this depends on the terminal you are using, I guess; I hit Ctrl+Alt+v in URxvt.
proceed to approval/manual edit.
Clearly this is just a workaround, consisting in copying the edited command into the clipboard before deleting the whole command, so that nothing gets executed upon exiting the editor; however it's the best I can get for myself.
Update
As my EDITOR (and VISUAL) is equal to vim, when I edit the command, I edit it in vim.
In this respect, I have noticed that the buffer is named /tmp/bash-fc.random, where random is a 6-characters alphanumeric random string.
This gives space to a lot of possiblities, if you use vim as your editor, as you can define some mapping in your .vimrc to execute the whole sequence Escape0"+y$dd:wq. For instance, one command that you'd rarely use when editing a command line is Leaderd; therefore you can put the following mapping in your .vimrc file
au BufEnter /tmp/bash-fc.* nn <Leader>d 0"+y$dd:wq<CR>
so that step 4 in the above recipe becomes
hit EscapeLeaderd
It's not possible to do that in Bash/readline but it's possible in zsh
using edit-command-line command:
darkstar% autoload edit-command-line; zle -N edit-command-line
darkstar% bindkey "^X^E" edit-command-line
Now press Control-x Control-e to open your editor, edit line, leave the editor - you will see the updated command line but it will not be executed automatically.
Now that I think about it, maybe a variation of what #kenorb suggested in a comment is the best workaround (as it seems no solution exists), if we want to stick to bash.
What you can do is prepend a # (the comment character in bash) to the command, rather than echo. Then when you exit the editor, the command will be ineffective, and you will only have to press arrow up (or k, if you use set -o vi), remove the # and confirming.
Note that this strategy adds just a few keystrokes, so it can be fairly efficient, depending on your typing level.
These pieces might get you closer:
a) replace the the normal binding for newline newline (ctrl-M)
bind -x '"\C-M":date"
b) grab the current line from the history using !#
replace date with whatever script you want.
c) edit manually
d) if necessary, somehow tie in !!:p which prints the new command to the command line but does not execute it, thus letting you manually edit it.
e) using ctrl-J submit edited command rather than a newline
or they might not ....
There is an option in bash to modify command from history without executing it. I'm not sure it it's possible to use script for this, doesn't seem to be likely. Although, you can make modifications using history modifiers.
Enable option histverify to prevent execution of modified command
Use chain of modifiers to change last command
Use "!!" to put your result to command line for final edit
Here is how it looks:
$ shopt -s histverify
$ ls *.sh
script1.sh script2.sh script3.sh script-return.sh
$ !!:s/*/script1/:p
ls script1.sh
$ !!:s/1/2/:p
ls script2.sh
$ !!
$ ls script2.sh
script2.sh
I'd like to point you to the Composure framework for Bash (I'm not affiliated with it): https://github.com/erichs/composure
It provides draft and revise functions that sound like they could help with what you're trying to do. Here's a (long) quote from the project's readme file:
Composure helps by letting you quickly draft simple shell functions,
breaking down your long pipe filters and complex commands into
readable and reusable chunks.
Draft first, ask questions later
Once you've crafted your gem of a command, don't throw it away! Use
draft () and give it a good name. This stores your last command as a
function you can reuse later. Think of it like a rough draft.
$ cat servers.txt
bashful: up
doc: down
up-arrow
$ cat servers.txt | grep down
doc: down
$ draft finddown
$ finddown | mail -s "down server(s)" admin#here.com
Revise, revise, revise!
Now that you've got a minimal shell function, you may want to make it
better through refactoring and revision. Use the revise () command
to revise your shell function in your favorite editor.
generalize functions with input parameters
add or remove functionality
add supporting metadata for documentation
$ revise finddown
finddown ()
{
about finds servers marked 'down' in text file
group admin
cat $1 | grep down
}
$ finddown servers.txt
doc: down
It does not seem possible with a keyboard shortcut, at least:
$ bind -P | grep -e command -e edit
complete-command can be found on "\e!".
edit-and-execute-command can be found on "\C-x\C-e".
emacs-editing-mode is not bound to any keys
possible-command-completions can be found on "\C-x!".
vi-editing-mode is not bound to any keys
This can be done in native bash using readline specifically READLINE_LINE and READLINE_POINT variables. I use this functionality all the time though not through vim, you would need to get the value of $selected from your vim command and if not empty it takes your original line + your input and replaces your original line with the combination without executing. output as a variable
_main() {
selected="$(__coms_select__ "$#")"
origonal_text=$READLINE_LINE READLINE_LINE="${READLINE_LINE:0:$READLINE_POINT}$selected${READLINE_LINE:$READLINE_POINT}"
READLINE_POINT=$(( READLINE_POINT + ${#selected} ))
}
bind -m emacs-standard -x '"\C-e": _main '
bind -m vi-command -x '"\C-e": _main '
bind -m vi-insert -x '"\C-e": _main '
Edit
Just remembered these two utilities that will let you do this as well.
Vipe allows you to run your editor in the middle of a unix pipeline and edit the data that is being piped between programs.
vp, up, vipe, Neomux (upgrade of nvim terminal) you can do some pretty neat throwing buffers between the terminal and split window.
and Athame (full vim on the command line)
https://github.com/ardagnir/athame
careful with that one though plugins work on the cli and it can get funky if you got tons of plugins
I ask because I recently made a change to a KornShell (ksh) script that was executing. A short while after I saved my changes, the executing process failed. Judging from the error message, it looked as though the running process had seen some -- but not all -- of my changes. This strongly suggests that when a shell script is invoked, the entire script is not read into memory.
If this conclusion is correct, it suggests that one should avoid making changes to scripts that are running.
$ uname -a
SunOS blahblah 5.9 Generic_122300-61 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-15000
No. Shell scripts are read either line-by-line, or command-by-command followed by ;s, with the exception of blocks such as if ... fi blocks which are interpreted as a chunk:
A shell script is a text file containing shell commands. When such a
file is used as the first non-option argument when invoking Bash, and
neither the -c nor -s option is supplied (see Invoking Bash), Bash
reads and executes commands from the file, then exits. This mode of
operation creates a non-interactive shell.
You can demonstrate that the shell waits for the fi of an if block to execute commands by typing them manually on the command line.
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bashref.html#Executing-Commands
http://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bashref.html#Shell-Scripts
It's funny that most OS'es I know, do NOT read the entire content of any script in memory, and run it from disk. Doing otherwise would allow making changes to the script, while running. I don't understand why that is done, given the fact :
scripts are usually very small (and don't take many memory anyway)
at some point, and shown in this thread, people would start making changes to a script that is already running anyway
But, acknowledging this, here's something to think about: If you decided that a script is not running OK (because you are writing/changing/debugging), do you care on the rest of the running of that script ? you can go ahead making the changes, save them, and ignore all output and actions, done by the current run.
But .. Sometimes, and that depends on the script in question, a subsequent run of the same script (modified or not), can become a problem since the current/previous run is doing an abnormal run. It would typically skip some stuff, or sudenly jump to parts in the script, it shouldn't. And THAT may be a problem. It may leave "things" in a bad state; particularly if file manipulation/creation is involved.
So, as a general rule : even if the OS supports the feature or not, it's best to let the current run finish, and THEN save the updated script. You can change it already, but don't save it.
It's not like in the old days of DOS, where you actually have only one screen in front of you (one DOS screen), so you can't say you need to wait on run completion, before you can open a file again.
No they are not and there are many good reasons for that.
One of the things you should keep in mind is that a shell is not an interpreter even if there are some similarities. Shells are designed to work with a stream of commands. Either from the TTY ,a PIPE, FIFO or even a socket.
The shell reads from its resource line by line until a EOF is returned by the kernel.
The most shells have no extra support for interpreting files. they work with a file as they would work with a terminal.
In fact this is considered to be a nice feature because you can do interesting stuff like this How do Linux binary installers (.bin, .sh) work?
You can use a binary file and prepend shell scripts. You can't do this with an interpreter. because it parses the whole file or at least it would try it and fail. A shell would just interpret it line by line and doesnt care about the garbage at the end of the file. You just have to make sure the execution of the script gets terminated before it reaches the binary part.
In a shell, I run following commands without problem,
ls -al
!ls
the second invocation to ls also list files with -al flag. However, when I put the above script to a bash script, complaints are thrown,
!ls, command not found.
how to realise the same effects in script?
You would need to turn on both command history and !-style history expansion in your script (both are off by default in non-interactive shells):
set -o history
set -o histexpand
The expanded command is also echoed to standard error, just like in an interactive shell. You can prevent that by turning on the histverify shell option (shopt -s histverify), but in a non-interactive shell, that seems to make the history expansion a null-op.
Well, I wanted to have this working as well, and I have to tell everybody that the set -o history ; set -o histexpand method will not work in bash 4.x. It's not meant to be used there, anyway, since there are better ways to accomplish this.
First of all, a rather trivial example, just wanting to execute history in a script:
(bash 4.x or higher ONLY)
#!/bin/bash -i
history
Short answer: it works!!
The spanking new -i option stands for interactive, and history will work. But for what purpose?
Quoting Michael H.'s comment from the OP:
"Although you can enable this, this is bad programming practice. It will make your scripts (...) hard to understand. There is a reason it is disabled by default. Why do you want to do this?"
Yes, why? What is the deeper sense of this?
Well, THERE IS, which I'm going to demonstrate in the follow-up section.
My history buffer has grown HUGE, while some of those lines are script one-liners, which I really would not want to retype every time. But sometimes, I also want to alter these lines a little, because I probably want to give a third parameter, whereas I had only needed two in total before.
So here's an ideal way of using the bash 4.0+ feature to invoke history:
$ history
(...)
<lots of lines>
(...)
1234 while IFS='whatever' read [[ $whatever -lt max ]]; do ... ; done < <(workfile.fil)
<25 more lines>
So 1234 from history is exactly the line we want. Surely, we could take the mouse and move there, chucking the whole line in the primary buffer? But we're on *NIX, so why can't we make our life a bit easier?
This is why I wrote the little script below. Again, this is for bash 4.0+ ONLY (but might be adapted for bash 3.x and older with the aforementioned set -o ... stuff...)
#!/bin/bash -i
[[ $1 == "" ]] || history | grep "^\s*$1" |
awk '{for (i=2; i<=NF; i++) printf $i" "}' | tr '\n' '\0'
If you save this as xselauto.sh for example, you may invoke
$ ./xselauto.sh 1234
and the contents of history line #1234 will be in your primary buffer, ready for re-use!
Now if anyone still says "this has no purpose AFAICS" or "who'd ever be needing this feature?" - OK, I won't care. But I would no longer want to live without this feature, as I'm just too lazy to retype complex lines every time. And I wouldn't want to touch the mouse for each marked line from history either, TBH. This is what xsel was written for.
BTW, the tr part of the pipe is a dirty hack which will prevent the command from being executed. For "dangerous" commands, it is extremely important to always leave the user a way to look before he/she hits the Enter key to execute it. You may omit it, but ... you have been warned.
P.S. This scriptlet is in fact a workaround, simulating !1234 typed on a bash shell. As I could never make the ! work directly in a script (echo would never let me reveal the contents of history line 1234), I worked around the problem by simply greping for the line I wanted to copy.
History expansion is part of the interactive command-line editing features of a shell, not part of the scripting language. It's not generally available in the context of a script, only when interacting with a (pseudo-)human operator. (pseudo meaning that it can be made to work with things like expect or other keystroke repeating automation tools that generally try to play act a human, not implying that any particular operator might be sub-human or anything).
I'm implementing an interactive bash script similar to the MySQL client, /usr/bin/mysql. In this script I need to issue various types of 'commands'. I also need to provide a history mechanism whereby the user can use the up/down arrow keys to scroll through the commands entered so far.
The snippet listed here (Example 15-6, Detecting the arrow keys) does not exactly do what I want it to. I really want the following:
The up/down arrow keys should operate in silent mode. Meaning, they should not echo their character codes on the terminal.
The other keys however (which will be used to read the command names and their arguments) must not operate in silent mode.
The problem with read -s -n3 is that it does not satisfy my simultaneously conflicting requirements of silent mode and echo mode, based solely on the character code. Also, the value -n3 will work for arrow keys but, for other/regular keys, it won't 'return control' to the calling program until 3 characters have been consumed.
Now, I could try -n1 and manually assemble the input, one character at a time (yuck!). But the character-code based silent-/echo-mode switching problem would still persist!
Has anyone attempted this thing in bash? (Note: I cannot use C, nor other scripting languages like Perl, Python, etc.)
EDIT
Continuing with Dennis' answer... You will also need to manually add your desired entries to your history via history -s, like so...
while read -e x; do
history -s "$x"
# ...
done
You can use read -e to have read use readline. It will process your cursor keys and maintain the history for you. You will also need to manually add your desired entries to your history via history -s, like so:
while read -e x; do
history -s "$x"
# ...
done
MySQL and Bash use the Readline library to implement this. Maybe you could use something like rlwrap or rlfe?
rlwrap has a special "one-shot" mode to act as a replacement for the 'read' shell command. If you wish, every occurrence of this command in your script can be given its own history and completion word list.
Use it like this:
REPLY=$(rlwrap -o cat)
or, specifying a history file and a completion wordlist:
REPLY=$(rlwrap -H my_history -f my_completions -o cat)
I work in a place that has gazillions of tools which require tons of options, so I rely on my shell's history significantly. I even back it up every now and then just to make sure I don't lose useful, lengthy commands.
I just typed one of these commands and I want to make sure it's flushed to the history file, but I have a long-running job in the background and I can't type exec zsh. Is there something else I can do in this situation?
(Sure, I could copy and paste it into a file, but it would be more logical for there to exist a flush-history command.)
To write the shell history to the history file, do
fc -W
fc has some useful flags, see them all in man zshbuiltins.
You can also fully automate reading and writing the history file after each command (thus sharing your history file automatically with each running zsh) by saying setopt -o sharehistory. Read more history-related options in man zshoptions.
I also just found:
setopt INC_APPEND_HISTORY
From man zshoptions:
INC_APPEND_HISTORY
This options works like APPEND_HISTORY except that new history
lines are added to the $HISTFILE incrementally (as soon as they
are entered), rather than waiting until the shell exits. The
file will still be periodically re-written to trim it when the
number of lines grows 20% beyond the value specified by $SAVE-
HIST (see also the HIST_SAVE_BY_COPY option).
And use
fc -R
to read in the history (after writing it) in an existing zsh shell.
appen below line to ~/.zshrc, it will save 1000 entry we increase by changing value of HISTSIZE and SAVEHIST
HISTSIZE=1000
if (( ! EUID )); then
HISTFILE=~/.zsh_history_root
else
HISTFILE=~/.zsh_history
fi
SAVEHIST=1000