Hacker News Reader

Comment by c0l0 | Hacker News Reader

I wish this misguided notion regarding "inofficial strict mode" would go away, as `set -e` is suboptimal (and can be very tedious to deal with on top of that): https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/105

It makes sense to opt into errexit for select blocks/sections in scripts and under certain circumstances, but having it default-on is a recipe for quite a bit of head-scratching in the future.

View on HN

Using -e isn't an excuse to not understand how it works and when it doesn't. It's so that the default in most situation is to exit on failure as that's likely what you want to do. That leads to more terse scripts which hopefully are easier to write correctly and understand. I'd argue that opting in to exit-on-failure for stand alone commands is the right default.

No, absolutely wrong. The ”right default” is to catch return codes and provide actionable, clear and consistent error messages through an error-exit function.

If I'm writing a bash script I run manually and it's more than a handful of functions I agree. I'm there to babysit it and its probably complicated.

If the bash script is ran on thousands of containers where its not possible to babysit. My number one job is to stop immediately when an error happens and surface that error to any monitoring system.

I agree about that distinction, but still, won’t that error need to be formatted? Is it safe to rely on logging picking up on the error or does the ”simple script” solution imply that there is monitoring for the script exit code?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com