From a3991d078b2583cd09e58230333e8070a723e332 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nils Gillmann Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:49:41 +0000 Subject: We want portable shell scripts, not plain bash-specific scripts. Signed-off-by: Nils Gillmann --- doc/documentation/chapters/contributing.texi | 15 ++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/documentation/chapters/contributing.texi b/doc/documentation/chapters/contributing.texi index ed1c19b30..f4493e6c1 100644 --- a/doc/documentation/chapters/contributing.texi +++ b/doc/documentation/chapters/contributing.texi @@ -95,14 +95,23 @@ of languages, in order of preference: @enumerate @item C @item Portable Shell Scripts -@item Bash Scripts -@c Nim ? @item Python (@geq{}3.6) @end enumerate We welcome efforts to remove our existing python-2.7 scripts to -replace them either with Bash or, at your choice, python-3.6+. +replace them either with portable shell scripts or, +at your choice, python-3.6+. If you contribute new python based testcases, we advise you to not repeat our past misfortunes and write the tests in a standard test framework like for example pytest. + +For writing portable shell scripts, these tools are useful: +@uref{https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck, Shellcheck}, +@uref{https://salsa.debian.org/debian/devscripts/blob/master/scripts/checkbashisms.pl, checkbashisms}, +@uref{http://www.etalabs.net/sh_tricks.html}, +@uref{https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DashAsBinSh}, +and @uref{https://mywiki.wooledge.org/Bashism} + +@c You could also run "bin/check_shell_script" (which we still have +@c to write). -- cgit v1.2.3