patternbashMinor
Address book app to learn bash
Viewed 0 times
addressappbooklearnbash
Problem
I'm fairly proficient in C and Python, but want to learn some skills for administrating my new Linux machine. I wrote this simple address book app to teach myself shell scripting. This is the first script I've written longer than a couple of lines.
The address book is a plain text file stored in
The application is divided into four scripts that have a single task each. This is inspired by how Git is organized. Is this a good way to isolate independent code in bash?
How should I handle shared code between scripts? I've use two different approaches below: I created a standalone script that the others call for determining the database name, and I copy-pasted the
sab-find-db
sab-search
sab-add
```
#!/bin/bash
function die {
echo "$1" >&2
exit 1
}
if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
entry="$1:$2:$3"
elif [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
echo -n "First name: "
read first_name
echo -n "Surname: "
read surname
ech
The address book is a plain text file stored in
$HOME/.sab-db. Entries are separated by newlines and the three fields (first name, surname, email) are separated by colons, like the fields in /etc/passwd.The application is divided into four scripts that have a single task each. This is inspired by how Git is organized. Is this a good way to isolate independent code in bash?
How should I handle shared code between scripts? I've use two different approaches below: I created a standalone script that the others call for determining the database name, and I copy-pasted the
die function. I've heard of script sourcing, but I've never seen that used for creating bash "libraries".sab-find-db
#!/bin/bash
DB_NAME=".sab-db"
if [ -n "$SAB_DB_DIR" ]; then
echo "$SAB_DB_DIR/$DB_NAME"
else
echo "$HOME/$DB_NAME"
fisab-search
#!/bin/bash
function die {
echo "$1" >&2
exit 1
}
if [ $# -eq 1 ]; then
# Fields can't include : since it's the delimiter
if [ $(echo "$1" | grep ":" | wc -l) -gt 0 ]; then
exit 0
else
file=$(mktemp)
grep -i "$1" $(./sab-find-db) >"$file" 2>/dev/null
fi
elif [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
file=$(./sab-find-db)
else
die "usage: $0 [ | | ]"
fi
cat "$file"
while read line; do
echo "First name: $(echo "$line" | cut -d: -f1 -)"
echo "Surname: $(echo "$line" | cut -d: -f2 -)"
echo "Email: $(echo "$line" | cut -d: -f3 -)"
echo
done <"$file"
if [ $# -eq 1 ]; then
rm "$file"
fisab-add
```
#!/bin/bash
function die {
echo "$1" >&2
exit 1
}
if [ $# -eq 3 ]; then
entry="$1:$2:$3"
elif [ $# -eq 0 ]; then
echo -n "First name: "
read first_name
echo -n "Surname: "
read surname
ech
Solution
Your main questions
The application is divided into four scripts that have a single task each. This is inspired by how Git is organized. Is this a good way to isolate independent code in bash?
If the scripts are short, it's simpler to have all the code in one script, with each main functionality in its own function.
If the scripts are longer, and you suspect that they will get longer and longer, then it makes sense to keep them as separate scripts in a dedicated directory. However, in this case, if the scripts need to call each other, then you need a way so that they can find each other. A simple way is to add the directory of the scripts to
Since you launch another script using the
How should I handle shared code between scripts? I've use two different approaches below: I created a standalone script that the others call for determining the database name, and I copy-pasted the die function. I've heard of script sourcing, but I've never seen that used for creating bash "libraries".
Yes, script sourcing is more common. Another benefit of that will be that you can define your common functions in one place, no need to copy-paste
Something I often do is
Function definitions
The convention is to put parentheses in function definitions, and to omit the " function " keyword, like this:
Benefit from program exit codes
You can benefit from the exit codes of programs more aggressively. For example instead of this:
It's better to write this way:
There are several things going on here:
We can do even better. Instead of
But the best is to use pattern matching with
Use the principle about exit codes to rewrite the rest of your code and the other scripts.
Exit with non zero on error
In many places you exit with code 1 to signal an error but not here:
It would be better to echo a friendly message, and then exit with 1.
Safety
This part is a bit scary:
Within the same script,
The application is divided into four scripts that have a single task each. This is inspired by how Git is organized. Is this a good way to isolate independent code in bash?
If the scripts are short, it's simpler to have all the code in one script, with each main functionality in its own function.
If the scripts are longer, and you suspect that they will get longer and longer, then it makes sense to keep them as separate scripts in a dedicated directory. However, in this case, if the scripts need to call each other, then you need a way so that they can find each other. A simple way is to add the directory of the scripts to
PATH. Another simple way is to require that users must cd into the directory of the scripts of they want to use them.Since you launch another script using the
./ prefix, that will only work if the other script is in the current directory.How should I handle shared code between scripts? I've use two different approaches below: I created a standalone script that the others call for determining the database name, and I copy-pasted the die function. I've heard of script sourcing, but I've never seen that used for creating bash "libraries".
Yes, script sourcing is more common. Another benefit of that will be that you can define your common functions in one place, no need to copy-paste
die into every script that needs it.Something I often do is
cd to the directory of the script, and then source the common configuration and function definitions, like this:cd $(dirname "$0")
. ./config.sh
. ./functions.shFunction definitions
The convention is to put parentheses in function definitions, and to omit the " function " keyword, like this:
die() {
echo "$1" >&2
exit 1
}Benefit from program exit codes
You can benefit from the exit codes of programs more aggressively. For example instead of this:
if [ $(echo "$1" | grep ":" | wc -l) -gt 0 ]; thenIt's better to write this way:
if echo $1 | grep -q :; thenThere are several things going on here:
- I omitted the quoting of
$1, because for the purpose here, it doesn't matter
grepexits with success if a pattern is found
- The
-qflag makesgrepoutput nothing, but that of course doesn't change the fact of success or not, it's just too avoid garbage output
- The statement has been radically changed. Instead of comparing the output of the
wccommand, we are operating based on exit codes. There is no more[ ... ]
We can do even better. Instead of
echo, we can use "here strings" to cut out one more process:if grep -q : <<< "$1"; thenBut the best is to use pattern matching with
[[:if [[ $1 = *:* ]]; thenUse the principle about exit codes to rewrite the rest of your code and the other scripts.
Exit with non zero on error
In many places you exit with code 1 to signal an error but not here:
if [ $(echo "$1" | grep ":" | wc -l) -gt 0 ]; then
exit 0It would be better to echo a friendly message, and then exit with 1.
Safety
This part is a bit scary:
if [ $# -eq 1 ]; then
rm "$file"
fiWithin the same script,
file is sometimes a temporary file, sometimes it's the actual database. This can be confusing. It's easy to make mistakes in shell scripting, and with one simple mistake, your database might go up in smoke. I suggest to reorganize your code: move this dangerous operation closer to the code that creates the temp file. In addition, refer to the temp file by a different name, and use that name in the rm command. In other words, make it really hard to mistakenly delete the wrong file.Code Snippets
cd $(dirname "$0")
. ./config.sh
. ./functions.shdie() {
echo "$1" >&2
exit 1
}if [ $(echo "$1" | grep ":" | wc -l) -gt 0 ]; thenif echo $1 | grep -q :; thenif grep -q : <<< "$1"; thenContext
StackExchange Code Review Q#96221, answer score: 7
Revisions (0)
No revisions yet.