# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse.
# 
# Usage:
#     https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users              View list of users and latest twt date.
#     https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt                View all twts.
#     https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri  View all mentions for uri.
#     https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash         View all twts for a conversation subject.
# 
# Options:
#     uri     Filter to show a specific users twts.
#     offset  Start index for quey.
#     limit   Count of items to return (going back in time).
# 
# twt range = 1 30
# self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/7lf75ba
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
I love shell scripts because they’re so pragmatic and often allow me to get jobs done really quickly.

But sadly they’re full of pitfalls. Pitfalls everywhere you look.

Today, a coworker – who’s highly skilled, not a newbie by any means – ran into this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
bash: line 1: bar: unbound variable

Why’s that happening? I know the answer. Do you? 😂

Stuff like that made me stop using shell scripts at work, unless they’re just 4 or 5 lines of absolutely trivial code. It’s now Python instead, even though the code is often much longer and clunkier, but at least people will understand it more easily and not trip over it when they make a tiny change.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
I love shell scripts because they’re so pragmatic and often allow me to get jobs done really quickly.

But sadly they’re full of pitfalls. Pitfalls everywhere you look.

Today, a coworker – who’s highly skilled, not a newbie by any means – ran into this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
bash: line 1: bar: unbound variable

Why’s that happening? I know the answer. Do you? 😂

Stuff like that made me stop using shell scripts at work, unless they’re just 4 or 5 lines of absolutely trivial code. It’s now Python instead, even though the code is often much longer and clunkier, but at least people will understand it more easily and not trip over it when they make a tiny change.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
I love shell scripts because they’re so pragmatic and often allow me to get jobs done really quickly.

But sadly they’re full of pitfalls. Pitfalls everywhere you look.

Today, a coworker – who’s highly skilled, not a newbie by any means – ran into this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
bash: line 1: bar: unbound variable

Why’s that happening? I know the answer. Do you? 😂

Stuff like that made me stop using shell scripts at work, unless they’re just 4 or 5 lines of absolutely trivial code. It’s now Python instead, even though the code is often much longer and clunkier, but at least people will understand it more easily and not trip over it when they make a tiny change.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
I love shell scripts because they’re so pragmatic and often allow me to get jobs done really quickly.

But sadly they’re full of pitfalls. Pitfalls everywhere you look.

Today, a coworker – who’s highly skilled, not a newbie by any means – ran into this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
bash: line 1: bar: unbound variable

Why’s that happening? I know the answer. Do you? 😂

Stuff like that made me stop using shell scripts at work, unless they’re just 4 or 5 lines of absolutely trivial code. It’s now Python instead, even though the code is often much longer and clunkier, but at least people will understand it more easily and not trip over it when they make a tiny change.
bender
twtxt.net
View Thread
@movq it should be:

bash
bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" = "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'



eq is for numericals.
bender
twtxt.net
View Thread
@movq it should be:

bash
bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" = "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'

lyse
lyse.isobeef.org
View Thread
@movq @bender That's what I thought while reading the code, too. I believe -eq is for numerical comparation only. Weird error message, though. Tells something about the implementation.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@bender So far, so good! And why did it complain about bar being a variable?
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@bender So far, so good! And why did it complain about bar being a variable?
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@bender So far, so good! And why did it complain about bar being a variable?
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@bender So far, so good! And why did it complain about bar being a variable?
falsifian
www.falsifian.org
View Thread
@movq Variable names used with -eq in [[ ]] are automatically expanded even without $ as explained in the "ARITHMETIC EVALUATION" section of the bash man page. Interesting. Trying this on OpenBSD's ksh, it seems "set -u" doesn't affect that substitution.
falsifian
www.falsifian.org
View Thread
@movq Variable names used with -eq in \n] are automatically expanded even without $ as explained in the "ARITHMETIC EVALUATION" section of the bash man page. Interesting. Trying this on OpenBSD's ksh, it seems "set -u" doesn't affect that substitution.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@falsifian Exactly! 🥳

So this works:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ "foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

Without the misleading quotes:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ foo -eq bar ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

As does this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if (( foo == bar )); then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

What the person originally meant was what bender said:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" = "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

It’s all rather easy once you’ve understood it … but the initial error message of the initial version can be quite unexpected.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@falsifian Exactly! 🥳

So this works:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ "foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

Without the misleading quotes:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ foo -eq bar ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

As does this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if (( foo == bar )); then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

What the person originally meant was what bender said:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" = "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

It’s all rather easy once you’ve understood it … but the initial error message of the initial version can be quite unexpected.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@falsifian Exactly! 🥳

So this works:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ "foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

Without the misleading quotes:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ foo -eq bar ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

As does this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if (( foo == bar )); then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

What the person originally meant was what bender said:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" = "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

It’s all rather easy once you’ve understood it … but the initial error message of the initial version can be quite unexpected.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@falsifian Exactly! 🥳

So this works:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ "foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

Without the misleading quotes:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ foo -eq bar ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

As does this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if (( foo == bar )); then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

What the person originally meant was what bender said:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if [[ "$foo" = "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

It’s all rather easy once you’ve understood it … but the initial error message of the initial version can be quite unexpected.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@falsifian Exactly! 🥳

So this works:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if \n]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

Without the misleading quotes:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if \n]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

As does this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if (( foo == bar )); then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

What the person originally meant was what bender said:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if \n]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

It’s all rather easy once you’ve understood it … but the initial error message of the initial version can be quite unexpected.
movq
www.uninformativ.de
View Thread
@falsifian Exactly! 🥳

So this works:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ "foo" -eq "bar" ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

Without the misleading quotes:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if [[ foo -eq bar ]]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

As does this:

$ bash -c 'set -u; bar=1; foo=$bar; if (( foo == bar )); then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

What the person originally meant was what bender said:

$ bash -c 'set -u; foo=bar; if \n]; then echo it matches; fi'
it matches

It’s all rather easy once you’ve understood it … but the initial error message of the initial version can be quite unexpected.
mckinley
twtxt.net
View Thread
This one got me. I try to stick to POSIX sh so I'm not super familiar with the behavior of [[]]. I definitely should have gotten -eq, though.
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
This is why you stick to POSIX sh as @mckinley points out 🤣 Prwtry sure this is a "Bashism" right?
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
This is why you stick to POSIX sh as @mckinley points out 🤣 Prwtry sure this is a "Bashism" right?
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Also, why isn't shellcheck being used here? It would have picked this (contrived) example up?


bar is referenced but not assigned. [SC2154]

prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Also, why isn't shellcheck being used here? It would have picked this (contrived) example up?


bar is referenced but not assigned. [SC2154]

prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
I was/am right of course :D


In POSIX sh, [[ ]] is undefined. [SC3010]

prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
I was/am right of course :D


In POSIX sh, [[ ]] is undefined. [SC3010]

prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Which once fixed, removing the extra [ and ] errors out with shellcheck as expected:


Invalid number for -eq. Use = to compare as string (or use $var to expand as a variable). [SC2170]

prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
Which once fixed, removing the extra [ and ] errors out with shellcheck as expected:


Invalid number for -eq. Use = to compare as string (or use $var to expand as a variable). [SC2170]

prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
And errors out expectedly using dash or ash, very nice POSIX Sh compliant shells:


$ ./foo.sh
./foo.sh: line 5: [: bar: integer expression expected



So the lessons here are twofold:

- Always use shellcheck to check your shell code
- Never use Bash or rely on Bash(isms). Always prefer POSIX Sh
prologic
twtxt.net
View Thread
And errors out expectedly using dash or ash, very nice POSIX Sh compliant shells:


$ ./foo.sh
./foo.sh: line 5: [: bar: integer expression expected



So the lessons here are twofold:

- Always use shellcheck to check your shell code
- Never use Bash or rely on Bash(isms). Always prefer POSIX Sh