[patch] testsuite/testing.sh: removes obvious bashisms

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Friday 02 May 2008 13:52, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> Really, what I wanted to underline is this:
> 
>   If we want those test scripts to all work with various default
>   shells, than a good approach is to try to make them posix-complient.

I agree.

> The two major examples I gave are 'echo' and 'printf'.
> 
> echo usage in the test-scripts:
> 
>   - the '-e' options is _not_ posix
>   - use of the '-e' option may lead to several tests failing if the
>     default shell (dash on several distributions) does not support it
>   - I think the '-n' option should also be avoided
>   - I'm _not_ saying busybox echo should not support the '-e' and '-n'
>     options
>   - and this is what I base my statements on:
>       http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/echo.html
>   - the above document talks about "XSI-conformant systems" and says
>     "The following character sequences shall be recognized on
>     XSI-conformant systems"; '\xHH' is not one of them, but '\OOO' is; the
>     question is: can we always assume XSI-conformancy of all default
>     shells on all distributions?

I understand this and agree that making it work on more systems
is a good goal.
> 
> printf usage in the test-scripts:
> 
>   - printf should replace 'echo -ne', as according to this:
>       http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/printf.html
>     it that's what it is intended for (among othe things)
>   - escape sequences like '\xHH' are posix-complient, but '\OOO' are and
>     should be used instead
> 
> > > I have no problems with that, but I still think printf is easier and
> > > more flexible.
> 
> Should have added "as a replacement for 'echo -ne'".
> 
> > printf has more than just aestethic problems.
> 
> Obviously you don't like printf :)

I don't have any problems with it. I just know that new-style scripts
can break if we switch to it, because their strings can contain "%".

Therefore it cannot be used.

> > All "new-style" tests use echo -ne (indirectly). If you change that to
> > printf, you nned to audit them all for "%<letter>" format specifier.
> 
> Hmm...  Yes, some things might break in such cases, but it looks like
> 'echo -ne' leads to far more breakage on some distributions.

Therefore neither echo -ne nor printf is ok.
I propose using helper binary.
--
vda