Explanation for newbies:
-
Shell is the programming language that you use when you open a terminal on linux or mac os. Well, actually "shell" is a family of languages with many different implementations (bash, dash, ash, zsh, ksh, fish, ....)
-
Writing programs in shell (called "shell scripts") is a harrowing experience because the language is optimized for interactive use at a terminal, not writing extensive applications
-
The two lines in the meme change the shell's behavior to be slightly less headache-inducing for the programmer:
set -euo pipefailis the short form of the following three commands:set -e: exit on the first command that fails, rather than plowing through ignoring all errorsset -u: treat references to undefined variables as errorsset -o pipefail: If a command piped into another command fails, treat that as an error
export LC_ALL=Ctells other programs to not do weird things depending on locale. For example, it forcesseqto output numbers with a period as the decimal separator, even on systems where coma is the default decimal separator (russian, dutch, etc.).
-
The title text references "posix", which is a document that standardizes, among other things, what features a shell must have. Posix does not require a shell to implement
pipefail, so if you want your script to run on as many different platforms as possible, then you cannot use that feature.
set -euo pipefailis, in my opinion, an antipattern. This page does a really good job of explaining why. pipefail is occasionally useful, but should be toggled on and off as needed, not left on. IMO, people should just write shell the way they write go, handling every command that could fail individually. it's easy if you write adiefunction like this:It only takes a little bit of extra effort to handle the errors individually, and you get much more reliable shell scripts. To replace -u, just use shellcheck with your editor when writing scripts. I'd also highly recommend https://mywiki.wooledge.org/ as a resource for all things POSIX shell or Bash.
After tens of thousands of bash lines written, I have to disagree. The article seems to argue against use of -e due to unpredictable behavior; while that might be true, I've found having it in my scripts is more helpful than not.
Bash is clunky. -euo pipefail is not a silver bullet but it does improve the reliability of most scripts. Expecting the writer to check the result of each command is both unrealistic and creates a lot of noise.
When using this error handling pattern, most lines aren't even for handling them, they're just there to bubble it up to the caller. That is a distraction when reading a piece of code, and a nuisense when writing it.
For the few times that I actually want to handle the error (not just pass it up), I'll do the "or" check. But if the script should just fail, -e will do just fine.
Yeah, while
-ehas a lot of limitations, it shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. The unofficial strict mode can still de-weird bash to an extent, and I'd rather drop bash altogether when they're insufficient, rather than try increasingly hard to work around bash's weirdness. (I.e. I'd throw out the bathwater, baby and the family that spawned it at that point.)