Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Introduce shellcheck to lint shell scripts #15169

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bin/ci Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
bin/crystal Show resolved Hide resolved
scripts/git/pre-commit Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/llvm/ext/find-llvm-config Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v4
- name: Run ShellCheck
uses: ludeeus/action-shellcheck@master
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not super happy with running an arbitrarily changing action with an arbitrarily changing version of shellcheck.
Using the shellcheck executable that's available out of the box in GHA or Ubuntu would be slightly better. Or ideally this would be a precise version of a GitHub release of shellcheck, with its version managed by https://docs.renovatebot.com/modules/datasource/github-releases/

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could be done in a follow-up, I suppose 🤔

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's a good point. I just picked this up as it's an easy solution.
However, we can at least pin the version of the action.

I'm happy to use any other mechanism.

We could also simply use grep -l -E '^#!(/usr/bin/env bash|/bin/sh|/bin/bash)' $(git ls-files) to detect changed script files.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Integration with pre-commit would also be nice 🤷

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
on:
push:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Might be worth defining paths here. Supposedly this check could then run very rarely, only when needed
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/writing-workflows/workflow-syntax-for-github-actions#onpushpull_requestpull_request_targetpathspaths-ignore

Copy link
Member Author

@straight-shoota straight-shoota Nov 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. A bit of an obstacle is that there's no simple glob to catch all shell script. Some like bin/crystal have no extension. The GitHub action actually checks all files for a matching shebang.
Limiting paths would need to hard code all paths that don't identify as shell script by their extension. That means the check could miss out on new ones being added.
I suppose this is an acceptable limitation, though. I wouldn't expect too much movement in that regard.

On the other hand, this job finishes reallly quickly - especially compared to our other workflows - in just 7s so it's not too much overhead to run it on every commit.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah it's a fair point. Not a good tradeoff then

Copy link
Member Author

@straight-shoota straight-shoota Nov 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm actually not so sure. Either way seems quite fine. So maybe we can hear some other's comments on this.

It's also relevant to note that the discovery feature depends on the GitHub action and another comment is suggesting we might do without the action. Droping automatic path discovery would make that easier.

@oprypin
Copy link
Member

oprypin commented Nov 8, 2024

It will be nice to have this 🙂

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants