First of all, I'd like to be corrected on my vocabulary. I assume Terminal provides an environment for bash, which is a type/version of shell. Is this correct?
I'm trying to utilize bash and shell more in my development processes to speed up deployment. However, I'm only beginning to understand the basics outside the commands I've learned from growing up.
I've started making functions in Terminal to help automate some of my more repetitious tasks. This is all find and dandy until I exit terminal.
I assume that shell runs in an instance, so that instance is lost when I exit terminal. I notice that shell leaves a .bash_history, also accessible using 'history', where I can see my old functions from old sessions. However, of course, they no longer appear to execute.
I recognize that I could create a shell script, but this introduces compiling issues as well as having to pay more attention to where the scripts are stored relatively.
Question: When I create bash scripts using command(){}, they do not persist after closing the terminal. Can I make them do that so on new terminal sessions I have access to my old functions without resorting to shell scripts?
Edit: I also wanted to mention that I tried extensively to find an issue to this using traditional means, but "save" and "exit" in the search term often will direct to other aspects of shell.
Your first statement is correct. A terminal instance runs a type of shell (bash, sh, csh)
You can add them to your ~/.bashrc file or add the saved script path (no compiling needed) to your PATH variable.
You could also just copy scripts to /usr/local/bin for quick access anytime. You would have no need to keep track of where they are relatively. This is quite handy and makes your scripts available to other users (or not if permissions are set correctly)
See the Using History Interactively section of the Bash Reference Manual for ways you can execute commands from your history.
For example, typing !?foo and pressing Enter will execute the most recent command containing "foo". I like to have shopt -s histverify histreedit in my ~/.bashrc so I can edit and confirm the command, if necessary rather than executing it immediately.
Also see the Commands For Manipulating The History section for keystrokes you can use to search for history entries to recall and execute.
For example, pressing Ctrl-r and typing foo will recall the most recent command containing "foo". You can press Ctrl-r additional times to continue searching in reverse for additional matching commands. Press Enter when you're ready to execute the one currently shown or Ctrl-g to abort the search.
If you add stty -ixon to your ~/.bashrc, then you can use Ctrl-s to search forward through history after you've begun searching backward.
Of course, you can save your functions by editing ~/.bashrc and adding them to it. I prefer to keep my functions in a file I created called ~/bin/functions and then add a line to ~/.bashrc to source that file. The line looks like . ~/bin/functions.
I save larger scripts in /usr/local/bin or ~/bin. The former should already be in your path and you can add the latter to your path by editing ~/.bashrc.
After you type in the functions on the command-line you could recall them using command-line editing (as #Dennis Williamson mentioned), but there is an easier method: declare -f. This command lists all current functions, and you can redirect them to a file:
home/user1> function myfunc {
> echo "Hollow world!"
> }
/home/user1> declare -f > myfuncs
/home/user1> more myfuncs
myfunc ()
{
echo "Hollow world"
}
Note how Bash changes the function syntax from Korn shell to Bourne shell! Fortunately there is no difference between the two in Bash (unlike ksh93).
When you need to load the function it is a simple matter:
/home/user1> source myfuncs
/home/user1> myfunc
Hollow world!
You don't need execute permissions by the way, only read.
You could (as others have said) add this to one of your start-up files, like .bashrc.
You can create a simple library which would contain all your functions. This would basically solve your problem of storing functions.
yeshwantnaik$ cat my_functions.lib
function do_something(){
#your code goes here
}
Save it wherever you want. Preferably to your $HOME directory.
Load the library. Don't miss the dot in the beginning.
yeshwantnaik$ . $HOME/my_functions.lib
Now you can run your function directly.
yeshwantnaik$ do_something
Let Linux do stuff for you
You can skip the step of manually loading the library by letting Linux do it for you when you log in automatically.
Run below commands
echo ". $HOME/my_functions.lib" >> ~/.bashrc
echo ". $HOME/my_functions.lib" >> ~/.bash_profile
source ~/.bashrc
source ~/.bash_profile
That's it. You can directly execute your function from the command line without doing anything.
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:
"${(P)A_VAR}"
However, correcting the syntax won’t help because it will then fail when executed. The shebang will invoke bash and the syntax will be wrong again. That renders indirection useless for accessing a variable designed to indicate the shell in use. More importantly, a design based on querying an environment variable for the shell is flawed due to differences in the shell that’s ultimately used depending on whether the script is executed or sourced.
To add to your answer (what I'm going to say is too long for a comment), I can not think of any application, why your script could be useful if not sourced. Actually, I came accross the need of such a script by myself in exactly one occasion:
Since I use as interactive shell not only zsh, but also sometimes bash, so I have written my .zshrc and .bashrc to set up everything (including defining variables and shell functions for interactive use). In order to safe work,
I try to put code which works under both bash and zsh into a single file (say: .commonrc), and my .zshrc and .bashrc have inside them a
source .commonrc
While many things are so different in bash and zsh, that I can't put them into .commonrc, some can, provided I do some tweaking. One reason for headache is obviously the different indexing of arrays, which you seemingly try to solve. So I have also a similar feature. However, I don't nee ca case construct for this. Instead, my .bashrc looks like this (using your naming of the variables):
...
declare -r ARRAY_START=0
source .commonrc
...
and my .zshrc looks like this:
...
declare -r ARRAY_START=1
source .commonrc
...
Since it does not happen that the .bashrc is run from a zsh and vice versa, I don't need to query what kind of shell I have.
I am trying to execute a shell script for automating the process rather than manually running the python script. But i am getting the error folder not found.
cd /home/gaurav/AndroPyTool
export ANDROID_HOME=$HOME/android-sdk-linux/
export PATH=$PATH:$ANDROID_HOME/tools
export PATH=$PATH:$ANDROID_HOME/platform-tools
source ~/.bashrc
source droidbox_env/bin/activate
alias mycd='cd /home/gaurav/AndroPyTool/test'
mycd
pwd
python androPyTool.py -all -csv EXPORTCSV.csv -s mycd
>>>> AndroPyTool -- STEP 1: Filtering apks
Folder not found!
This is the error i am getting because the script is not able to find the path that i have provided above.
The part after "-s" in the code represents the folder path where the file stored.
The issue here is that you are not passing the path to the python program. The python program is not aware of bash aliases and bash will only expand aliases when it is interpreting the token as a command.
When bash reads python androPyTool.py -all -csv EXPORTCSV.csv -s mycd It interprets python as the command and all other space separated tokens are arguments that will be passed into python. Python then invokes androPyTool.py and passes the subsequent arguments to that script. So the program is receiving literally mycd as the argument for -s.
Moreover, even if mycd is expanded, it wouldn't be the correct argument for -s. androPyTool.py is expecting just the /path/to/apks, not cd /path/to/apks/.
I don't really think that using the alias in this script makes much sense. It actually makes the script harder to read and understand. If you want to wrap a command, I recommend defining a function, and occasionally you can use variable expansion (but that mixes code and data which can lead to issues). EDIT: As has been pointed out in the comments, aliases are disabled for scripts.
Finally there are some other suspicious issues with your script. Mainly, why are you sourcing .bashrc? If this script is run by you in your user's environment, .bashrc will already be sourced and there is no need to re-source it. On the other hand, if this is not intended to be run in your environment, and there is something in the .bashrc file that you need in your script, I recommend pulling just that out and nothing else.
But the most immediate issue that I can see is that sourcing .bashrc after you modify path runs the risk of overwriting the changes to PATH you just made. Depending on the contents of the .bashrc file, sourcing it may not be idempotent, meaning that running it more than once could have side effects. Finally, anything could get thrown in that .bashrc file down the road since that's what its for. So now your script may depend on something that likely will be changing. This opens up the possibility that bugs will creep in to your script unexpectedly.
I have a ~/.zshrc file that executes all the top-level shell scripts in my ~/Shell directory, these top-level scripts in turn execute the lower-level scripts. For example, scripts in ~/Shell/programs (the so called "lower-level scripts") are executed by the top-level ~/Shell/09-programs.sh script. I have noticed lately that running ~/.zshrc has become much slower than it used to be and I would like to know if there are any methods to determine which script (or set of scripts) in my ~/Shell directory are causing it to become so slow. It would also be helpful to know the precise line number in each script that causes the script to become so slow. If you would like to see my ~/.zshrc file and ~/Shell scripts here is their GitHub repository that I update regularly.
PS4=':[%*]:%x:%I+' zsh -x -l -i
will run a new login shell with each line executed preceded by a second-accurate timestamp, the filename and line number from which it was defined.
Incidentally, the bash equivalent to this looks something like:
PS4=':[\t]:$BASH_SOURCE:$LINENO+' bash -x -l -i
...though personally, I might use $SECONDS in that case rather than \t, to get an integer number of seconds since shell invocation.
Haven't been able to crack this one, any help would be apprecaited.
I have a small script that does some logic and then tries to create aliases for me to load into my shell. I've tried several different approaches to do so, but haven't been able to get anything better than this. Which feels like a nasty hack.
script.pl > new_aliases.txt && source new_aliases.txt && rm new_aliases.txt
Ideally, this happens inside a .bashrc file so it's loaded when the shell starts. The best I've been able to do is wrap the line above in a shell function and then calling that manually after the shell starts.
Inside my .profile
function load_aliases () {
script.pl > new_aliases.txt && source new_aliases.txt && rm new_aliases.txt
}
Then after shell starts...
load_aliases
Like I said this does what I want, but 1) it's damn ugly and 2) manual.
Looks like you want
eval "$(script.pl)"
If you want this in an interactive function, you should put in the full path to script.pl so it works regardless of which directory you are in; or, of course, have script.pl in your PATH.
If you want to put this in a function in your .profile, you need to make sure the output doesn't produce any Bashisms, because .profile is shared with other shells. Maybe put it in .bash_profile instead (but note that of you create a new .bash_profile, this disables reading .profile when you start Bash, so you will want to do that explicitly from your .bash_profile then).
For example, source and function are (rather superfluous IMHO) Bash extensions, which are not valid commands in regular sh.
The usual caveats about eval apply, of course, but this is no more unsafe than what you are already doing.
Why don't you put the load_aliases command into your .bashrc?
In addition to the eval solution, you can also use process substitution to treat the output of script.pl as a file.
source <(script.pl)
This should work, although I can't shake the nagging suspicion that I ran into an issue once with source expecting a real file, not what is essentially a pipe.
I wish to replace my failing memory with a very small shell script.
#!/bin/sh
if ! [ –a $1.sav ]; then
mv $1 $1.sav
cp $1.sav $1
fi
nano $1
is intended to save the original version of a script. If the original has been preserved before, it skips the move-and-copy-back (and I use move-and-copy-back to preserve the original timestamp).
This works as intended if, after I make it executable with chmod I launch it from within the directory where I am editing, e.g. with
./safe.sh filename
However, when I move it into /usr/bin and then I try to run it in a different directory (without the leading ./) it fails with:
*-bash: /usr/bin/safe.sh: /bin/sh: bad interpreter: Text file busy*
My question is, when I move this script into the path (verified by echo $PATH) why does it then fail?
D'oh? Inquiring minds want to know how to make this work.
The . command is not normally used to run standalone scripts, and that seems to be what is confusing you. . is more typically used interactively to add new bindings to your environment (e.g. defining shell functions). It is also used to similar effect within scripts (e.g. to load a script "library").
Once you mark the script executable (per the comments on your question), you should be able to run it equally well from the current directory (e.g. ./safe.sh filename) or from wherever it is in the path (e.g. safe.sh filename).
You may want to remove .sh from the name, to fit with the usual conventions of command names.
BTW: I note that you mistakenly capitalize If in the script.
The error bad interpreter: Text file busy occurs if the script is open for write (see this SE question and this SF question). Make sure you don't have it open (e.g. in a editor) when attempting to run it.