vim red highlight $( ) - bash

I was writing a script when I decided to move the functions to a lib file, but when I open the lib file all the $( and the consecutive ) are red highlighted, here are some examples of the script
TAB="$(printf '\t')"
percent=$(echo "scale=2; $number/$total*100" | bc | sed -e 's/\.[[:digit:]]*//g')
if [[ -z $(grep $site/post $max_lim) ]];then
The filetype is conf but I've set it as sh syntax in .vimrc
Any idea of what is happenning?
Thank you
Edit: Thanks for the quick answers, I found that this line makes vim match the files with the extension specified behind the * with the syntax sh
au BufReadPost * set syntax=sh
I've also thought that using shebang in the libraries was not allowed, but is a nice solution
Anyway using g:is_bash in .vimrc returns an error of pattern not found
So what I would like to do is as I only write in bash, to vim recognize any file without extension as bash

The syntax file for sh actually handles several different kinds of shell syntax: bash, ksh, and plain old sh. Since your conf file isn't recognized as bash or ksh, it falls back to sh. $(...) isn't a valid construct in sh, so it is highlighted as an error.
To fix this, you can make sure "g:is_bash" is set for the file, so that the sh syntax script will know your file should be highlighted as bash code. Please edit your question to include what you added to your .vimrc to make the file use sh syntax highlighting. This will make it easier to suggest the correct way of setting "g:is_bash".
UPDATE: As Alok commented, you should be able to add the following to the file
#!/bin/bash
to let vim know the correct syntax highlighting to use as well.

In my case, I wanted to preserve #!/bin/sh as the shebang line because not every system has /bin/bash available.
Whereas the original Bourne shell may have not supported the $(...) syntax, most sh shells nowadays are POSIX-compliant, and the POSIX spec supports this syntax. For example,
On Ubuntu, /bin/sh is /bin/dash.
On MacOS, /bin/sh is /bin/bash.
On Alpine, /bin/sh is /bin/ash.
All of which satisfy the POSIX spec. Traditionally, if we'd like to write portable Shell, we should leave the shebang line as #!/bin/sh. We shouldn't change it to #!/bin/bash just for syntax highlighting if we're not going to use any Bashisms.
Okay, but what about the erroneous red highlighting? The problem is with Vim interpreting #!/bin/sh as a reference to the original Bourne shell from 1979 with no support for $(...). Maybe this is a testament to Vim's backwards compatibility, or maybe not enough people care. Here's a related GitHub issue describing the same behavior.
In any case, the best solution for me was to set let g:is_posix = 1 in my config. Interestingly, if you look through Vim's runtime files, it's equivalent to setting let g:is_kornshell = 1.
A brief interesting history on how the Bourne shell was bourne, bourne again as bash as a substitute for /bin/sh on Ubuntu, and eventually replaced in favor of dash can be found at https://askubuntu.com/a/976504.

Related

Converting a BASH script to run on SH (via BusyBox)

I have an Asus router running a recent version of FreshTomato - that comes with BusyBox.
I need to run a script that was made with BASH in mind - it is an adaptation of this script - but it fails to run with this error: line 41: syntax error: bad substitution
Checking the script with shellcheck.net yields these errors:
Line 41:
for optionvarname in ${!foreign_option_*} ; do
^-- SC3053: In POSIX sh, indirect expansion is undefined.
^-- SC3056: In POSIX sh, name matching prefixes are undefined.
Line 42:
option="${!optionvarname}"
^-- SC3053: In POSIX sh, indirect expansion is undefined.
These are the lines that are causing problems:
for optionvarname in ${!foreign_option_*} ; do # line 41
option="${!optionvarname}" # line 42
# do some stuff with $option...
done
If my understanding is correct, the original script simply does something with all variables that have a name starting with foreign_option_
However, as far as I could determine, both ${!foreign_option_*} and ${!optionvarname} constructs are BASH-specific and not POSIX compliant, so there is no direct "bash to sh" code conversion possible.
I have tried to create a /bin/bash symlink that points to busybox, but I got the Read-only file system error.
So, how can I get this script to run on my router? I see only two options, but I cant figure out how to implement either:
Make BusyBox interpret the script as BASH instead of SH - can I use a specific shebang for this?
Seems like the fastest option, but only if BusyBox has a "complete" implementation of BASH
Alter the script code to not use BASH specifics.
This is safer, but since there is no "collect al variables starting with X" for SH, how can I do it?
how can I get this script to run on my router?
That easy, either:
install bash on your router or
port the script to busybox/posix compatible shell.
Make BusyBox interpret the script as BASH instead of SH - can I use a specific shebang for this?
That doesn't make sense. Busybox comes with ash shell interpreter and bash is bash. Bash can interpret bash extensions, ash can't interpret them. You can't "make busybox interpret bash" - cars don't fly, planes are for that. If you want to make a car fly, you add wings to it and make it faster. The answer to Make BusyBox interpret the script as BASH instead of SH would be: patch busybox and implement all bash extensions in it.
Shebang is used to run a file under different interpreter. Using #!/bin/bash would invoke bash, which would be unrelated to anything busybox related and busybox wouldn't be involved in it.
how can I do it?
Decide on a unrealistic maximum, iterate over variables named foreign_option_{1...some_max}, for each variable see if it is set, if it is set, cotinue the script.
for i in $(seq 100); do
optionvarname="foreign_option_${i}"
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3601515/how-to-check-if-a-variable-is-set-in-bash
if eval "[ -z \"\${${optionvarname}+x}\" ]"; then continue; fi;
With enough luck maybe you can use the set output. The following will fail if any variable contains a value as newline + the string that matches the regex:
for optionvarname in $(set | grep -o '^foreign_option_[0-9]\+=' | sed 's/=//'); then
Indirect expansion can be easily replaced by eval:
eval "option=\"\$${optionvarname}\""
If you really cannot install Bash on that router, here is one possible workaround, which seems to work for me in BusyBox on a Qnap NAS :
foreign_option_one=1
foreign_option_two=2
for x in one two; do
opt_var=foreign_option_${x}
eval "opt_value=\$$opt_var"
echo "$opt_var = $opt_value"
done
(But you will probably encounter more problems with moving a Bash script to busybox, so you might want to first consider alternatives like replacing the router)

Bash strips "N" character when using newline-delimiter

I am using Windows Linux Subsystem (Ubuntu). When I try to set a newline-delimiter, I lose my 'n'-characters. My simplified script;
#!/bin/sh
echo $HOME #gives /home/hennio
IFS=$'\n'
echo $HOME #gives /home/he io
IFS=$'\n\b' didnt solve the problem. I checked my shebang with $(which sh), it is correct (although using zsh).
Searching on internet didnt give any results. Can someone please tell me whats going on? It driving me nuts..
To maintain compatibility, a shell invoked as /bin/sh usually tries to emulate a POSIX shell or some variant of a Bourne shell. Neither POSIX nor Bourne support $'...'. There are two possible solutions:
Method 1: Use the shebang of a shell, like bash, that supports $'...'.
Or,
Method 2: Use a POSIX method to assigning a newline to IFS:
IFS='
'
(Hat tip: Gordon Davisson)
Documentation
From man zsh:
Zsh tries to emulate sh or ksh when it is invoked as sh or ksh
respectively
From man bash:
If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as possible,
while conforming to the POSIX standard as well.

Why does ""Here strings" in bash changes the syntax color of whatever follows it?

I am writing a bash script which uses here strings (<<<), please see example below. The script works fine and gives expected output, but the problem is that the (vim) editor syntax color is all messed up after the line where here string was used. Any clues why and also how I can fix it ?
As text:
# get all running screens
scrcmd=$(ps auxw|grep -i screen|grep -v grep|awk '{print $15}')
allscr=()
while read -r line; do
allscr+=("$line")
done <<< $scrcmd
echo "got screens, now do something else"
The bash (really sh) highlight mode in Vim is multipurpose; it tries to cover POSIX sh, bash, and ksh. You have to tell it you specifically want bash.
:let b:is_bash=1
:set ft=sh
It should highlight properly after that.
If you only ever care about bash, you could just make this your default in .vimrc:
let g:is_bash=1
EDIT: As pointed out by Charles Duffy in comments, if you use a #! line, e.g.
#!/bin/bash
#!/usr/bin/env bash
Then vim should do the right thing on its own. That is probably easier, unless you have some reason you prefer not use #! lines.
(Even though that's likely easier, I am leaving my answer here because in this case you do not have a #! line, and that is not uncommon, especially in library code or files expected to be sourced, not executed.)

Should I use a Shebang with Bash scripts?

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

Getting bad substitution on Solaris 10 Bourne shell

I need to extract part of the string before the last opt in the string:
NDS=/opt/novell/opt/eDirectory/opt/abc
I want just the /opt/novell/opt/eDirectory/ part
I used NDSHOME=${NDS%opt*}
but I am getting bad substitution on Solaris 10, that is using the Bourne shell,
although this script works fine on Linux and AIX.
Can somebody find a solution to this??
Solaris' /bin/sh is notoriously not Posix compatible.
You could try the following workaround with sed
NDSHOME=`echo "$NDS" | sed 's/^\(.*\)\<opt\>.*$/\1/'`
Note: Normally I would use $() instead of backtics for command substitution, but I don't think those work on Solaris either.
Edit
Changed it so that opt will not match intra-word boundaries
$ echo $NDS
/opt/novell/opt/eDirectory/opt/helicopter
$ echo "$NDS" | sed 's/^\(.*\)\<opt\>.*$/\1/'
/opt/novell/opt/eDirectory/
The dirname command prints all but the last level of the path name given as an argument.
$ NDS=/opt/novell/opt/eDirectory/opt/abc
$ NDSHOME=`dirname $NDS`
$ echo $NDSHOME
/opt/novell/opt/eDirectory/opt
(Add export as needed.)
EDIT :
The above doesn't work in this case. The OP wants to remove all components of the path following the last opt, not just the last component. I'll leave it here in case it's useful to someone else.
You could use dirname in a loop, stopping when the last component (as determined by basename) is `opt':
NDSHOME="$NDS"
while [ "`basename $NDSHOME`" != opt ] ; do
NDSHOME="`dirname $NDSHOME`"
done
but that's more complex than it needs to be; sed is a better solution.
SiegeX's answer is good, but it treats opt as a string, not just as a path component. For example, it will turn
/opt/novell/opt/eDirectory/opt/helicopter
into
/opt/novell/opt/eDirectory/opt/helic
Try this:
NDSHOME=`echo "$NDS" | sed 's,\(.*\)/opt/.*$,\1,'`
(Note the use of , rather than / as a delimiter, so the / characters in the pattern don't have to be escaped.)
Solaris is definitely POSIX (and several related standards like xpg4 and susv3) compliant but it also takes compatibility with older versions quite seriously.
The side effect is that when both these features conflict in some way, the affected commands are, by default, not POSIX compliant not to break legacy scripts.
Should you want POSIX compatibility and have no legacy script issues, just set your PATH like this:
PATH=/usr/xpg6/bin:/usr/xpg4/bin:/usr/ccs/bin:$PATH
and set your login shell to /usr/xpg4/bin/sh
Alternatively, if you do not need strict compliance, you might just use /bin/ksh as your default shell.
With Solaris 10 and older, you shouldn't really use /bin/sh at all in new scripts.
For reference, here is the Solaris 10 standards manual page and the one for Solaris 11 is here.
Use the Bourne-Again shell instead.

Resources