shellcheck-repl VS Task

> "Use shellcheck."

(Disclaimer: I'm one of the authors)

After falling in love with ShellCheck several years ago, with the help of another person, I made the ShellCheck REPL tool for Bash:

  https://github.com/HenrikBengtsson/shellcheck-repl>

Thank you, and thanks for the suggestion. Yes, it should be possible to keep the SC2154 check. I probably just disabled it as a quick fix when first started out. I'm tracking this in https://github.com/HenrikBengtsson/shellcheck-repl/issues/15.

> You'd also want to take into account special variables like $RANDOM and $HOSTNAME, but that's pretty trivial.

It seems like ShellCheck is already aware of these special Bash variable, e.g. 'echo $RANDOM' will not trigger SC2154 (or even SC2086 that otherwise asks you to quote variables).

shellcheck-repl: Validation of Shell Commands Before Evaluation

https://github.com/HenrikBengtsson/shellcheck-repl

This tool validates your commands at the Bash prompt using ShellCheck and refuses to evaluate them if there's a mistake. It ignores a set of rules that doesn't play well with oneliners.

(Disclaimer: I'm one of the authors)

So many tools in this space! This one looks a little bit like go-task, but it seems maybe better for production workflows because if timeout support, while go-task seems more aimed to command line work/makefile replacement.

—-

https://github.com/go-task/task

View on GitHub

A similar tool is `task` https://taskfile.dev/ . It is quite capable and also a single executable. I've grown to quite like it.

check out tasks - a bit of a learning curve but arguably more powerful imo

That's when I came across taskfile.dev. Task is an automation tool designed to be more accessible than other options, such as GNU Make.

Full disclosure, I did not review Conda or Hatch fully. Not that there is anything explicitly wrong with either of them. Conda is too specific to the scientific community for my general taste. Hatch seems to go well with Conda and also uses the PyProject manifest as well. It's nice that it gives you several built in tools, similar to commit hooks, but I tend to like to roll my own via a Taskfile and run them with Poetry.

Taskfile is a tool for streamlining repetitive development tasks. It helps automate activities like building, testing, and deploying applications. Unlike Makefile, Taskfile uses YAML for configuration, making it more readable and user-friendly.

9. We test everything with another promotion which runs make targets which build docker containers to run python scripts (pytest)

This is also built by a complicated web of wildcarded makefile targets, which need to be interoperable and support a few if/else cases for specific components.

My plan is to migrate all of this to something simpler and more straightforward, or at least more maintainable, which is honestly probably going to turn into taskfile[0] instead of makefiles, and then simple python scripts for the glue that ties everything together or does more complex logic.

My hope is that it can be more straightforward and easier to maintain, with more component-ized logic, but realistically every step in that labyrinthine build process (and that's just the open-source version!) came from a decision made by a very talented team of engineers who know far more about the process and the product than I do. At this point I'm wondering if it would make 'more sense' to replace it with a giant python script of some kind and get access to all the logic we need all at once (it would not).

[0] https://taskfile.dev/

task - a task runner and a replacement for make