9826
Comment: fix the "duh I used set -u and I broke it" "fix" which didn't actually work; what the hell is that getopts long options thing?
|
9165
Remove the blank line, maybe fixing the TOC
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 18: | Line 18: |
else | else |
Line 30: | Line 30: |
Line 38: | Line 39: |
else | else |
Line 48: | Line 49: |
Line 50: | Line 50: |
Line 64: | Line 65: |
else | else |
Line 73: | Line 74: |
Line 77: | Line 77: |
Line 83: | Line 84: |
Line 102: | Line 102: |
Line 109: | Line 108: |
Here is an example which claims to parse long options with `getopts`. The basic idea is quite simple: just put "-:" into the optstring. This trick requires a shell which permits the option-argument (i.e. the filename in "-f filename") to be concatenated to the option (as in "-ffilename"). The [[http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/getopts.html|POSIX standard]] says there must be a space between them; bash and dash permit the "-ffilename" variant, but one should not rely on this leniency if attempting to write a portable script. | Here is an example which parses long options with `getopts`. The basic idea is quite simple: just put "-:" into the optstring. This trick requires a shell which permits the option-argument (i.e. the filename in "-f filename") to be concatenated to the option (as in "-ffilename"). The [[http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/getopts.html|POSIX standard]] says there must be a space between them; bash and dash permit the "-ffilename" variant, but one should not rely on this leniency if attempting to write a portable script. |
Line 114: | Line 113: |
optspec=":hv-:" | optspec=":h-:" |
Line 120: | Line 119: |
val="${!OPTIND}"; OPTIND=$(( $OPTIND + 1 )) | eval val="\$${OPTIND}"; OPTIND=$(( $OPTIND + 1 )) |
Line 128: | Line 127: |
*) if [ "$OPTERR" = 1 ] && [ "${optspec:0:1}" != ":" ]; then echo "Unknown option --${OPTARG}" >&2 fi ;; |
|
Line 134: | Line 128: |
v) echo "Parsing option: '-${optchar}'" >&2 ;; *) if [ "$OPTERR" != 1 ] || [ "${optspec:0:1}" = ":" ]; then echo "Non-option argument: '-${OPTARG}'" >&2 fi ;; |
|
Line 143: | Line 129: |
echo "usage: $0 [-v] [--loglevel[=]<value>]" >&2 | echo "usage: $0 [--loglevel[=]<value>]" >&2 |
Line 149: | Line 135: |
''Even if we ignore the portability issue, are you sure this is an ''improvement'' over the manual loop in the first example? The manual loop is much simpler. Also, why is it checking `OPTERR` which is something the programmer sets, not something set by `getopts`?'' - GreyCat |
|
Line 152: | Line 136: |
Line 171: | Line 154: |
Line 187: | Line 169: |
Line 219: | Line 200: |
Line 224: | Line 206: |
}}} . ''It appears to be intelligent enough to handle null options, whitespace-containing options, and single-quote-containing options in a manner that makes the [[BashFAQ/048|eval]] not blow up in your face. But this is not an endorsement of the process-getopt software overall; I don't know it well enough. -GreyCat It's written and tested on Linux where getopt(1) supports long options. For portability, it tests the local getopt(1) at runtime and if it finds an non-GNU one (ie one that does not return 4 for {{{getopt --test}}}) it only processes short options. It does not use the bash builtin getopts(1) command. -[[http://bhepple.freeshell.org/oddmuse/wiki.cgi/process-getopt|bhepple]] |
}}} . ''It appears to be intelligent enough to handle null options, whitespace-containing options, and single-quote-containing options in a manner that makes the [[BashFAQ/048|eval]] not blow up in your face. But this is not an endorsement of the process-getopt software overall; I don't know it well enough. -GreyCat '' ''It's written and tested on Linux where getopt(1) supports long options. For portability, it tests the local getopt(1) at runtime and if it finds an non-GNU one (ie one that does not return 4 for {{{getopt --test}}}) it only processes short options. It does not use the bash builtin getopts(1) command. -[[http://bhepple.freeshell.org/oddmuse/wiki.cgi/process-getopt|bhepple]] '' |
Line 230: | Line 212: |
CategoryShell | '' CategoryShell '' |
How can I handle command-line arguments (options) to my script easily?
Well, that depends a great deal on what you want to do with them. There are several approaches, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
Manual loop
This approach handles any arbitrary set of options, because you're writing the parser yourself. For 90% of programs, this turns out to be the simplest and most direct approach, since very few scripts need complicated option processing.
Here's an example that will handle a combination of short (-h) and long (--help) options.
# Bash while [[ $1 == -* ]]; do case "$1" in -h|--help|-\?) show_help; exit 0;; -v|--verbose) verbose=1; shift;; -f) if (($# > 1)); then output_file=$2; shift 2 else echo "-f requires an argument" 1>&2 exit 1 fi ;; --) shift; break;; -*) echo "invalid option: $1" 1>&2; show_help; exit 1;; esac done
Now all of the remaining arguments are the filenames which followed the optional switches. You can process those with for i or "$@".
A POSIX version of that same code:
# POSIX while true; do case "$1" in -h|--help|-\?) show_help; exit 0;; -v|--verbose) verbose=1; shift;; -f) if [ $# -gt 1 ]; then output_file=$2; shift 2 else echo "-f requires an argument" 1>&2 exit 1 fi ;; --) shift; break;; -*) echo "invalid option: $1" 1>&2; show_help; exit 1;; *) break;; esac done
Some Bash programmers write this at the beginning of their scripts:
set -u # or, set -o nounset
This way Bash stops if it's forced to work with the value of an unset variable. If you use set -o nounset, the Bash version of the "manual loop" shown above may break, if there are no additional non-option arguments. It can be fixed thus:
# Bash (with set -u) while [[ ${1+defined} && $1 == -* ]]; do case "$1" in -h|--help|-\?) show_help; exit 0;; -v|--verbose) verbose=1; shift;; -f) if (($# > 1)); then output_file=$2; shift 2 else echo "-f requires an argument" 1>&2 exit 1 fi ;; --) shift; break;; -*) echo "invalid option: $1" 1>&2; show_help; exit 1;; esac done
Of course, a simpler fix would be not to use set -u in the first place; or at least to use it only after the option processing is finished.
What these examples do not handle are:
You want things like -xvf to be handled as three separate flags (equivalent to -x -v -f).
You want to parse arguments out of --file=bar.
It's certainly possible to do those things by changing the code, but at least in the first case, there's another approach that handles that automatically.
getopts
Never use getopt(1). getopt cannot handle empty arguments strings, or arguments with embedded whitespace. Please forget that it ever existed.
The POSIX shell (and others) offer getopts which is safe to use instead. Here is a simplistic getopts example:
# POSIX OPTIND=1 # Reset in case getopts has been used previously in the shell. while getopts "h?vf:" opt; do case "$opt" in h|\?) show_help; exit 0;; v) verbose=1;; f) output_file=$OPTARG;; esac done shift $((OPTIND-1)) if [ "$1" = -- ]; then shift; fi echo "verbose=$verbose, output_file='$output_file', Leftovers: $@"
The disadvantage of getopts is that it can only handle short options (-h) without trickery. It handles -vf filename in the expected Unix way, automatically. getopts is a good candidate because it is portable and e.g. also works in dash.
There is a getopts tutorial which explains what all of the syntax and variables mean. In bash, there is also help getopts, which might be informative.
There is also still the disadvantage that options are coded in at least 2, probably 3 places - in the call to getopts, in the case statement that processes them and presumably in the help message that you are going to get around to writing one of these days. This is a classic opportunity for errors to creep in as the code is written and maintained - often not discovered till much, much later. This can be avoided by using callback functions, but this approach kind of defeats the purpose of using getopts at all.
Here is an example which parses long options with getopts. The basic idea is quite simple: just put "-:" into the optstring. This trick requires a shell which permits the option-argument (i.e. the filename in "-f filename") to be concatenated to the option (as in "-ffilename"). The POSIX standard says there must be a space between them; bash and dash permit the "-ffilename" variant, but one should not rely on this leniency if attempting to write a portable script.
1 #!/bin/bash
2 # Uses bash extensions. Not portable as written.
3 optspec=":h-:"
4 while getopts "$optspec" optchar; do
5 case "${optchar}" in
6 -)
7 case "${OPTARG}" in
8 loglevel)
9 eval val="\$${OPTIND}"; OPTIND=$(( $OPTIND + 1 ))
10 echo "Parsing option: '--${OPTARG}', value: '${val}'" >&2;
11 ;;
12 loglevel=*)
13 val=${OPTARG#*=}
14 opt=${OPTARG%=$val}
15 echo "Parsing option: '--${opt}', value: '${val}'" >&2
16 ;;
17 esac;;
18 h)
19 echo "usage: $0 [--loglevel[=]<value>]" >&2
20 exit 2
21 ;;
22 esac
23 done
Silly repeated brute-force scanning
Another approach is to check options with if statements "on demand". A function like this one may be useful:
# Bash HaveOpt() { local needle=$1 shift while [[ $1 == -* ]]; do case "$1" in --) return 1;; # by convention, -- is end of options $needle) return 0;; esac shift done return 1 } if HaveOpt --quick "$@"; then echo "Option quick is set"; fi
and it will work if script is run as:
- YES: ./script --quick
- YES: ./script -other --quick
but will stop on first argument with no "-" in front (or on --):
- NO: ./script -bar foo --quick
- NO: ./script -bar -- --quick
Of course, this approach (iterating over the argument list every time you want to check for one) is far less efficient than just iterating once and setting flag variables.
It also spreads the options throughout the program. The literal option --quick may appear a hundred lines down inside the main body of the program, nowhere near any other option name. This is a nightmare for maintenance.
Complex nonstandard add-on utilities
bhepple suggests the use of process-getopt (GPL licensed) and offers this example code:
PROG=$(basename $0) VERSION='1.2' USAGE="A tiny example using process-getopt(1)" # call process-getopt functions to define some options: source process-getopt SLOT="" SLOT_func() { [ "${1:-""}" ] && SLOT="yes"; } # callback for SLOT option add_opt SLOT "boolean option" s "" slot TOKEN="" TOKEN_func() { [ "${1:-""}" ] && TOKEN="$2"; } # callback for TOKEN option add_opt TOKEN "this option takes a value" t n token number add_std_opts # define the standard options --help etc: TEMP=$(call_getopt "$@") || exit 1 eval set -- "$TEMP" # just as with getopt(1) # remove the options from the command line process_opts "$@" || shift "$?" echo "SLOT=$SLOT" echo "TOKEN=$TOKEN" echo "args=$@"
Here, all information about each option is defined in one place making for much easier authoring and maintenance. A lot of the dirty work is handled automatically and standards are obeyed as in getopt(1) - because it calls getopt for you.
Actually, what the author forgot to say was that it's actually using getopts semantics, rather than getopt. I ran this test:
wooledg@wooledg:~/process-getopt-1.6$ set -- one 'rm -rf /' 'foo;bar' "'" wooledg@wooledg:~/process-getopt-1.6$ call_getopt "$@" -- 'rm -rf /' 'foo;bar' ''\'''
It appears to be intelligent enough to handle null options, whitespace-containing options, and single-quote-containing options in a manner that makes the eval not blow up in your face. But this is not an endorsement of the process-getopt software overall; I don't know it well enough. -GreyCat
It's written and tested on Linux where getopt(1) supports long options. For portability, it tests the local getopt(1) at runtime and if it finds an non-GNU one (ie one that does not return 4 for getopt --test) it only processes short options. It does not use the bash builtin getopts(1) command. -bhepple