pure-sh-bible VS scripts-to-rule-them-all

The guy who wrote it, also wrote a POSIX Shell bible: https://github.com/dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible

Do you have any specific examples to cite? The snippets are meant to be run in POSIX-compliant shells like dash/yash/ash/etc, not just Bash in compatibility mode.

In fact, there used to be a section which listed workarounds[1] for bugs in dash, but they have since been fixed[2]. If you are still using an old version of dash, you may need to use them.

[1] https://github.com/dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible/commit/70f410ebb...

[2] https://github.com/dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible/issues/13

Personally, I would steer clear of a script that installs dependencies on it's own. Us sysadmins prefer to manage our own dependencies, generally speaking. Instead consider a README that outlines how to meet/install dependencies for the script, or try to find ways to write your script in pure Shell or Bash without using tools like awk, jq, etc. Consider having a look at the Pure Sh Bible for examples of how to do many useful things in pure Sh.

POSIX Shell Tutorial POSIX shell cheat sheet GitHub - dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible: 📖 A collection of pure POSIX sh alternatives to external… Shell Scripting Tutorial

There is the "pure bash bible" but it seems less than maintained these days: https://github.com/dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible

Otherwise you're stuck reading the POSIX standard: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V...

Look at this: https://github.com/dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible

Personally I like https://github.blog/2015-06-30-scripts-to-rule-them-all/ as a pattern and then let the authors do whatever crazy thing they want from there. In my experience, 99% of repos never move past using simple shell scripts with a few common functions with that pattern, and things are kept fairly simple. A select few repositories tend to mature enough that they are able to invest in swapping towards something more testable than shell scripts, and then you just have a couple people who stick to invoking `make` from the scripts but it's fine and nobody has to think about it except them. We don't stick to that exact set of scripts, but find that as long as you don't use more than like 10ish entrypoints in `script/*`, and have at least `script/bootstrap` it's fine.

I dig the general idea, but question the value add over a directory of `scripts` that follow sane conventions (ie `script/test`, `script/build` etc). Is the main thing that you can do `just -l` to see available commands? I have never really reached for `make` when I've had a choice, as I've done mostly ruby, JS, or java where you have more sane, humane tools (i.e. Rake, Yarn, Maven though that one is never fun).

My general approach is every repo should have something that follows https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all, written in sh (maybe bash, its 2023), linted with shellcheck. When you need something fancy Rake is great or grab some nice bash command line helper and source it from all your scripts. Is a command listing really worth another dependency over what you get from `ls script` or `cat script/README` ?

Afaik AzDo cannot run tasks concurrently. From having had to work with azure pipelines I would highly suggest to use the github approach of Scripts to rule them all and avoiding predefined tasks unless absolutely necessary(Things that are complicated to implement and solutions already existing.

GitHub have a pattern for this called "scripts to rule them all" - https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all - I've not fully adopted it yet but I probably should, it looks very well thought-out.

People at Github made an attempt to fix this situation: scripts to rule them all. The idea is to have common set of executable scripts for common developer tasks in a script/ directory in the root of every project:

https://github.com/github/scripts-to-rule-them-all