basically I have written a shell script for a homework assignment that works fine however I am having issues with exiting. Essentially the script reads numbers from the user until it reads a negative number and then does some output. I have the script set to exit and output an error code when it receives anything but a number and that's where the issue is.
The code is as follows:
if test $number -eq $number >dev/null 2>&1
then
"do stuff"
else
echo "There was an error"
exit
The problem is that we have to turn in our programs as text files using script and whenever I try to script my program and test the error cases it exits out of script as well. Is there a better way to do this?
The script is being run with the following command in the terminal
script "insert name of program here"
Thanks
If the program you're testing is invoked as a subprocess, then any exit command will only exit the command itself. The fact that you're seeing contrary behavior means you must be invoking it differently.
When invoking your script from the parent testing program, use:
# this runs "yourscript" as its own, external process.
./yourscript
...to invoke it as a subprocess, not
# this is POSIX-compliant syntax to run the commands in "yourscript" in the current shell.
. yourscript
...or...
# this is bash-extended syntax to run the commands in "yourscript" in the current shell.
source yourscript
...as either of the latter will run all the commands -- including exit -- inside your current shell, modifying its state or, in the case of exit, exec or similar, telling it to cease execution.
I have 2 scripts which I initially wanted to join in a single script but it doesn't work for some reason. Anyways, once the first script is over, I'd like the second one to start automatically. How can I do that ? (I heard about shell scripts but I don't know to use it).
Thanks a lot
For the simple task you want to do, your shell script would only need:
#!/bin/sh
./script1
./script2
After creating your simple script you need to make it executable by running
chmod +x your script
Now you can run your new little shell script!
What if the first one fails?
If that's something that needs checking you can do:
if script1
then
script2
fi
or
script1 && script2
which is more idiomatic and succinct
Or even:
script1 && script2 || print "Big failure" 1>&2
as shell && has higher priority than ||, that reports the failure for either script's failure.
I am trying to implement something which my logic says can't be done. But I need your help to understand why can't it be.
Short Version of Question
Is it possible to log stdout+stderr of a script in csh without using file redirection ( >& or tee ).
Detailed Explanation of Question
I have a requirement with a csh script (script1) where I am not allowed to use file redirection.(I will give the reason in a while)
So that means I can't use something like
echo just checking >& logfile
hence I can't use this or tee to create my logfile.
I also have a another script (script2) which is a top level script.
I can either run script1 in standalone mode or through script2.
In either case i need to create a log(stdout+stderr) of script1 in logfile.
There are two possible(but not complete) option for that
write this line in script2
./script1 >& logfile
But then I can't log script1 in logfile when script1 is run in standalone mode.
Another option is to use file redirections in script1 like this:
echo test starting >> logfile
echo test over
In this case thee are two disadvantages:
1) "test over" prints before "test starting" , i.e. the order of occurring of command logs is not certain.
2) It's tedious to put >>& after every statement if I am intending to cover whole script.
Now is there any other way,I can get what I need. That is I can run script1 without file redirection and still get to log its stdout+stderr in logfile.
You mention csh, so this may not help you. On the other had, it may motivate you to stop using csh for scripts, a task for which it is notoriously inappropriate. In sh, you can simply do:
#!/bin/sh
exec > logfile 2>&1
echo foo
To write foo (and the output and errors of all subsequent commands) to the logfile
I have two shell scripts, a.sh and b.sh.
How can I call b.sh from within the shell script a.sh?
There are a couple of different ways you can do this:
Make the other script executable with chmod a+x /path/to/file(Nathan Lilienthal's comment), add the #!/bin/bash line (called shebang) at the top, and the path where the file is to the $PATH environment variable. Then you can call it as a normal command;
Or call it with the source command (which is an alias for .), like this:
source /path/to/script
Or use the bash command to execute it, like:
/bin/bash /path/to/script
The first and third approaches execute the script as another process, so variables and functions in the other script will not be accessible.
The second approach executes the script in the first script's process, and pulls in variables and functions from the other script (so they are usable from the calling script).
In the second method, if you are using exit in second script, it will exit the first script as well. Which will not happen in first and third methods.
Check this out.
#!/bin/bash
echo "This script is about to run another script."
sh ./script.sh
echo "This script has just run another script."
There are a couple of ways you can do this. Terminal to execute the script:
#!/bin/bash
SCRIPT_PATH="/path/to/script.sh"
# Here you execute your script
"$SCRIPT_PATH"
# or
. "$SCRIPT_PATH"
# or
source "$SCRIPT_PATH"
# or
bash "$SCRIPT_PATH"
# or
eval '"$SCRIPT_PATH"'
# or
OUTPUT=$("$SCRIPT_PATH")
echo $OUTPUT
# or
OUTPUT=`"$SCRIPT_PATH"`
echo $OUTPUT
# or
("$SCRIPT_PATH")
# or
(exec "$SCRIPT_PATH")
All this is correct for the path with spaces!!!
The answer which I was looking for:
( exec "path/to/script" )
As mentioned, exec replaces the shell without creating a new process. However, we can put it in a subshell, which is done using the parantheses.
EDIT:
Actually ( "path/to/script" ) is enough.
If you have another file in same directory, you can either do:
bash another_script.sh
or
source another_script.sh
or
. another_script.sh
When you use bash instead of source, the script cannot alter environment of the parent script. The . command is POSIX standard while source command is a more readable bash synonym for . (I prefer source over .). If your script resides elsewhere just provide path to that script. Both relative as well as full path should work.
Depends on.
Briefly...
If you want load variables on current console and execute you may use source myshellfile.sh on your code. Example:
#!/bin/bash
set -x
echo "This is an example of run another INTO this session."
source my_lib_of_variables_and_functions.sh
echo "The function internal_function() is defined into my lib."
returned_value=internal_function()
echo $this_is_an_internal_variable
set +x
If you just want to execute a file and the only thing intersting for you is the result, you can do:
#!/bin/bash
set -x
./executing_only.sh
bash i_can_execute_this_way_too.sh
bash or_this_way.sh
set +x
You can use /bin/sh to call or execute another script (via your actual script):
# cat showdate.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "Date is: `date`"
# cat mainscript.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "You are login as: `whoami`"
echo "`/bin/sh ./showdate.sh`" # exact path for the script file
The output would be:
# ./mainscript.sh
You are login as: root
Date is: Thu Oct 17 02:56:36 EDT 2013
First you have to include the file you call:
#!/bin/bash
. includes/included_file.sh
then you call your function like this:
#!/bin/bash
my_called_function
Simple source will help you.
For Ex.
#!/bin/bash
echo "My shell_1"
source my_script1.sh
echo "Back in shell_1"
Just add in a line whatever you would have typed in a terminal to execute the script!
e.g.:
#!bin/bash
./myscript.sh &
if the script to be executed is not in same directory, just use the complete path of the script.
e.g.:`/home/user/script-directory/./myscript.sh &
This was what worked for me, this is the content of the main sh script that executes the other one.
#!/bin/bash
source /path/to/other.sh
The top answer suggests adding #!/bin/bash line to the first line of the sub-script being called. But even if you add the shebang, it is much faster* to run a script in a sub-shell and capture the output:
$(source SCRIPT_NAME)
This works when you want to keep running the same interpreter (e.g. from bash to another bash script) and ensures that the shebang line of the sub-script is not executed.
For example:
#!/bin/bash
SUB_SCRIPT=$(mktemp)
echo "#!/bin/bash" > $SUB_SCRIPT
echo 'echo $1' >> $SUB_SCRIPT
chmod +x $SUB_SCRIPT
if [[ $1 == "--source" ]]; then
for X in $(seq 100); do
MODE=$(source $SUB_SCRIPT "source on")
done
else
for X in $(seq 100); do
MODE=$($SUB_SCRIPT "source off")
done
fi
echo $MODE
rm $SUB_SCRIPT
Output:
~ ❯❯❯ time ./test.sh
source off
./test.sh 0.15s user 0.16s system 87% cpu 0.360 total
~ ❯❯❯ time ./test.sh --source
source on
./test.sh --source 0.05s user 0.06s system 95% cpu 0.114 total
* For example when virus or security tools are running on a device it might take an extra 100ms to exec a new process.
pathToShell="/home/praveen/"
chmod a+x $pathToShell"myShell.sh"
sh $pathToShell"myShell.sh"
#!/bin/bash
# Here you define the absolute path of your script
scriptPath="/home/user/pathScript/"
# Name of your script
scriptName="myscript.sh"
# Here you execute your script
$scriptPath/$scriptName
# Result of script execution
result=$?
chmod a+x /path/to/file-to-be-executed
That was the only thing I needed. Once the script to be executed is made executable like this, you (at least in my case) don't need any other extra operation like sh or ./ while you are calling the script.
Thanks to the comment of #Nathan Lilienthal
Assume the new file is "/home/satya/app/app_specific_env" and the file contents are as follows
#!bin/bash
export FAV_NUMBER="2211"
Append this file reference to ~/.bashrc file
source /home/satya/app/app_specific_env
When ever you restart the machine or relogin, try echo $FAV_NUMBER in the terminal. It will output the value.
Just in case if you want to see the effect right away, source ~/.bashrc in the command line.
There are some problems to import functions from other file.
First: You needn't to do this file executable. Better not to do so!
just add
. file
to import all functions. And all of them will be as if they are defined in your file.
Second: You may be define the function with the same name. It will be overwritten. It's bad. You may declare like that
declare -f new_function_name=old_function_name
and only after that do import.
So you may call old function by new name.
Third: You may import only full list of functions defined in file.
If some not needed you may unset them. But if you rewrite your functions after unset they will be lost. But if you set reference to it as described above you may restore after unset with the same name.
Finally In common procedure of import is dangerous and not so simple. Be careful! You may write script to do this more easier and safe.
If you use only part of functions(not all) better split them in different files. Unfortunately this technique not made well in bash. In python for example and some other script languages it's easy and safe. Possible to make partial import only needed functions with its own names. We all want that in next bush versions will be done the same functionality. But now We must write many additional cod so as to do what you want.
Use backticks.
$ ./script-that-consumes-argument.sh `sh script-that-produces-argument.sh`
Then fetch the output of the producer script as an argument on the consumer script.
I'm wanting this script to print 1,2,3.. without the use of functions, just execute two.sh then carry on where it left off, is it possible?
[root#server:~]# cat testing.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "1"
exec ./two.sh
echo "3"
[root#server:~]# cat two.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "2"
return
exec, if you give it a program name a, will replace the current program with whatever you specify.
If you want to just run the script (in another process) and return, simply use:
./two.sh
to do that.
For this simple case, you can also execute the script in the context of the current process with:
. ./two.sh
That will not start up a new process but will have the side-effect of allowing two.sh to affect the current shell's environment. While that's not a problem for your current two.sh (since all it does is echo a line), it may be problematic for more complicated scripts (for example, those that set environment variables).
a Without a program name, it changes certain properties of the current program, such as:
exec >/dev/null
which simply starts sending all standard output to the bit bucket.
Sure, just run:
echo "1"
./two.sh
echo "3"