Related
I want to execute a long running command in Bash, and both capture its exit status, and tee its output.
So I do this:
command | tee out.txt
ST=$?
The problem is that the variable ST captures the exit status of tee and not of command. How can I solve this?
Note that command is long running and redirecting the output to a file to view it later is not a good solution for me.
There is an internal Bash variable called $PIPESTATUS; it’s an array that holds the exit status of each command in your last foreground pipeline of commands.
<command> | tee out.txt ; test ${PIPESTATUS[0]} -eq 0
Or another alternative which also works with other shells (like zsh) would be to enable pipefail:
set -o pipefail
...
The first option does not work with zsh due to a little bit different syntax.
Dumb solution: Connecting them through a named pipe (mkfifo). Then the command can be run second.
mkfifo pipe
tee out.txt < pipe &
command > pipe
echo $?
using bash's set -o pipefail is helpful
pipefail: the return value of a pipeline is the status of
the last command to exit with a non-zero status,
or zero if no command exited with a non-zero status
There's an array that gives you the exit status of each command in a pipe.
$ cat x| sed 's///'
cat: x: No such file or directory
$ echo $?
0
$ cat x| sed 's///'
cat: x: No such file or directory
$ echo ${PIPESTATUS[*]}
1 0
$ touch x
$ cat x| sed 's'
sed: 1: "s": substitute pattern can not be delimited by newline or backslash
$ echo ${PIPESTATUS[*]}
0 1
This solution works without using bash specific features or temporary files. Bonus: in the end the exit status is actually an exit status and not some string in a file.
Situation:
someprog | filter
you want the exit status from someprog and the output from filter.
Here is my solution:
((((someprog; echo $? >&3) | filter >&4) 3>&1) | (read xs; exit $xs)) 4>&1
echo $?
See my answer for the same question on unix.stackexchange.com for a detailed explanation and an alternative without subshells and some caveats.
By combining PIPESTATUS[0] and the result of executing the exit command in a subshell, you can directly access the return value of your initial command:
command | tee ; ( exit ${PIPESTATUS[0]} )
Here's an example:
# the "false" shell built-in command returns 1
false | tee ; ( exit ${PIPESTATUS[0]} )
echo "return value: $?"
will give you:
return value: 1
So I wanted to contribute an answer like lesmana's, but I think mine is perhaps a little simpler and slightly more advantageous pure-Bourne-shell solution:
# You want to pipe command1 through command2:
exec 4>&1
exitstatus=`{ { command1; printf $? 1>&3; } | command2 1>&4; } 3>&1`
# $exitstatus now has command1's exit status.
I think this is best explained from the inside out - command1 will execute and print its regular output on stdout (file descriptor 1), then once it's done, printf will execute and print icommand1's exit code on its stdout, but that stdout is redirected to file descriptor 3.
While command1 is running, its stdout is being piped to command2 (printf's output never makes it to command2 because we send it to file descriptor 3 instead of 1, which is what the pipe reads). Then we redirect command2's output to file descriptor 4, so that it also stays out of file descriptor 1 - because we want file descriptor 1 free for a little bit later, because we will bring the printf output on file descriptor 3 back down into file descriptor 1 - because that's what the command substitution (the backticks), will capture and that's what will get placed into the variable.
The final bit of magic is that first exec 4>&1 we did as a separate command - it opens file descriptor 4 as a copy of the external shell's stdout. Command substitution will capture whatever is written on standard out from the perspective of the commands inside it - but since command2's output is going to file descriptor 4 as far as the command substitution is concerned, the command substitution doesn't capture it - however once it gets "out" of the command substitution it is effectively still going to the script's overall file descriptor 1.
(The exec 4>&1 has to be a separate command because many common shells don't like it when you try to write to a file descriptor inside a command substitution, that is opened in the "external" command that is using the substitution. So this is the simplest portable way to do it.)
You can look at it in a less technical and more playful way, as if the outputs of the commands are leapfrogging each other: command1 pipes to command2, then the printf's output jumps over command 2 so that command2 doesn't catch it, and then command 2's output jumps over and out of the command substitution just as printf lands just in time to get captured by the substitution so that it ends up in the variable, and command2's output goes on its merry way being written to the standard output, just as in a normal pipe.
Also, as I understand it, $? will still contain the return code of the second command in the pipe, because variable assignments, command substitutions, and compound commands are all effectively transparent to the return code of the command inside them, so the return status of command2 should get propagated out - this, and not having to define an additional function, is why I think this might be a somewhat better solution than the one proposed by lesmana.
Per the caveats lesmana mentions, it's possible that command1 will at some point end up using file descriptors 3 or 4, so to be more robust, you would do:
exec 4>&1
exitstatus=`{ { command1 3>&-; printf $? 1>&3; } 4>&- | command2 1>&4; } 3>&1`
exec 4>&-
Note that I use compound commands in my example, but subshells (using ( ) instead of { } will also work, though may perhaps be less efficient.)
Commands inherit file descriptors from the process that launches them, so the entire second line will inherit file descriptor four, and the compound command followed by 3>&1 will inherit the file descriptor three. So the 4>&- makes sure that the inner compound command will not inherit file descriptor four, and the 3>&- will not inherit file descriptor three, so command1 gets a 'cleaner', more standard environment. You could also move the inner 4>&- next to the 3>&-, but I figure why not just limit its scope as much as possible.
I'm not sure how often things use file descriptor three and four directly - I think most of the time programs use syscalls that return not-used-at-the-moment file descriptors, but sometimes code writes to file descriptor 3 directly, I guess (I could imagine a program checking a file descriptor to see if it's open, and using it if it is, or behaving differently accordingly if it's not). So the latter is probably best to keep in mind and use for general-purpose cases.
(command | tee out.txt; exit ${PIPESTATUS[0]})
Unlike #cODAR's answer this returns the original exit code of the first command and not only 0 for success and 127 for failure. But as #Chaoran pointed out you can just call ${PIPESTATUS[0]}. It is important however that all is put into brackets.
In Ubuntu and Debian, you can apt-get install moreutils. This contains a utility called mispipe that returns the exit status of the first command in the pipe.
Outside of bash, you can do:
bash -o pipefail -c "command1 | tee output"
This is useful for example in ninja scripts where the shell is expected to be /bin/sh.
The simplest way to do this in plain bash is to use process substitution instead of a pipeline. There are several differences, but they probably don't matter very much for your use case:
When running a pipeline, bash waits until all processes complete.
Sending Ctrl-C to bash makes it kill all the processes of a pipeline, not just the main one.
The pipefail option and the PIPESTATUS variable are irrelevant to process substitution.
Possibly more
With process substitution, bash just starts the process and forgets about it, it's not even visible in jobs.
Mentioned differences aside, consumer < <(producer) and producer | consumer are essentially equivalent.
If you want to flip which one is the "main" process, you just flip the commands and the direction of the substitution to producer > >(consumer). In your case:
command > >(tee out.txt)
Example:
$ { echo "hello world"; false; } > >(tee out.txt)
hello world
$ echo $?
1
$ cat out.txt
hello world
$ echo "hello world" > >(tee out.txt)
hello world
$ echo $?
0
$ cat out.txt
hello world
As I said, there are differences from the pipe expression. The process may never stop running, unless it is sensitive to the pipe closing. In particular, it may keep writing things to your stdout, which may be confusing.
PIPESTATUS[#] must be copied to an array immediately after the pipe command returns.
Any reads of PIPESTATUS[#] will erase the contents.
Copy it to another array if you plan on checking the status of all pipe commands.
"$?" is the same value as the last element of "${PIPESTATUS[#]}",
and reading it seems to destroy "${PIPESTATUS[#]}", but I haven't absolutely verified this.
declare -a PSA
cmd1 | cmd2 | cmd3
PSA=( "${PIPESTATUS[#]}" )
This will not work if the pipe is in a sub-shell. For a solution to that problem,
see bash pipestatus in backticked command?
Base on #brian-s-wilson 's answer; this bash helper function:
pipestatus() {
local S=("${PIPESTATUS[#]}")
if test -n "$*"
then test "$*" = "${S[*]}"
else ! [[ "${S[#]}" =~ [^0\ ] ]]
fi
}
used thus:
1: get_bad_things must succeed, but it should produce no output; but we want to see output that it does produce
get_bad_things | grep '^'
pipeinfo 0 1 || return
2: all pipeline must succeed
thing | something -q | thingy
pipeinfo || return
Pure shell solution:
% rm -f error.flag; echo hello world \
| (cat || echo "First command failed: $?" >> error.flag) \
| (cat || echo "Second command failed: $?" >> error.flag) \
| (cat || echo "Third command failed: $?" >> error.flag) \
; test -s error.flag && (echo Some command failed: ; cat error.flag)
hello world
And now with the second cat replaced by false:
% rm -f error.flag; echo hello world \
| (cat || echo "First command failed: $?" >> error.flag) \
| (false || echo "Second command failed: $?" >> error.flag) \
| (cat || echo "Third command failed: $?" >> error.flag) \
; test -s error.flag && (echo Some command failed: ; cat error.flag)
Some command failed:
Second command failed: 1
First command failed: 141
Please note the first cat fails as well, because it's stdout gets closed on it. The order of the failed commands in the log is correct in this example, but don't rely on it.
This method allows for capturing stdout and stderr for the individual commands so you can then dump that as well into a log file if an error occurs, or just delete it if no error (like the output of dd).
It may sometimes be simpler and clearer to use an external command, rather than digging into the details of bash. pipeline, from the minimal process scripting language execline, exits with the return code of the second command*, just like a sh pipeline does, but unlike sh, it allows reversing the direction of the pipe, so that we can capture the return code of the producer process (the below is all on the sh command line, but with execline installed):
$ # using the full execline grammar with the execlineb parser:
$ execlineb -c 'pipeline { echo "hello world" } tee out.txt'
hello world
$ cat out.txt
hello world
$ # for these simple examples, one can forego the parser and just use "" as a separator
$ # traditional order
$ pipeline echo "hello world" "" tee out.txt
hello world
$ # "write" order (second command writes rather than reads)
$ pipeline -w tee out.txt "" echo "hello world"
hello world
$ # pipeline execs into the second command, so that's the RC we get
$ pipeline -w tee out.txt "" false; echo $?
1
$ pipeline -w tee out.txt "" true; echo $?
0
$ # output and exit status
$ pipeline -w tee out.txt "" sh -c "echo 'hello world'; exit 42"; echo "RC: $?"
hello world
RC: 42
$ cat out.txt
hello world
Using pipeline has the same differences to native bash pipelines as the bash process substitution used in answer #43972501.
* Actually pipeline doesn't exit at all unless there is an error. It executes into the second command, so it's the second command that does the returning.
Why not use stderr? Like so:
(
# Our long-running process that exits abnormally
( for i in {1..100} ; do echo ploop ; sleep 0.5 ; done ; exit 5 )
echo $? 1>&2 # We pass the exit status of our long-running process to stderr (fd 2).
) | tee ploop.out
So ploop.out receives the stdout. stderr receives the exit status of the long running process. This has the benefit of being completely POSIX-compatible.
(Well, with the exception of the range expression in the example long-running process, but that's not really relevant.)
Here's what this looks like:
...
ploop
ploop
ploop
ploop
ploop
ploop
ploop
ploop
ploop
ploop
5
Note that the return code 5 does not get output to the file ploop.out.
Recently in my work, I am facing an interesting problem regarding tee and process substitution.
Let's start with examples:
I have three little scripts:
$ head *.sh
File one.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "one starts"
if [ -p /dev/stdin ]; then
echo "$(cat /dev/stdin) from one"
else
echo "no stdin"
fi
File two.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "two starts"
if [ -p /dev/stdin ]; then
echo "$(cat /dev/stdin) from two"
else
echo "no stdin"
fi
File three.sh
#!/bin/bash
echo "three starts"
if [ -p /dev/stdin ]; then
sed 's/^/stdin for three: /' /dev/stdin
else
echo "no stdin"
fi
All three scripts read from standard input and print something to standard output.
The one.sh and two.sh are quite similar, but the three.sh is a bit different. It just adds some prefix to show what it reads from the standard input.
Now I am going to execute two commands:
1: echo "hello" | tee >(./one.sh) >(./two.sh) | ./three.sh
2: echo "hello" | tee >(./one.sh) >(./two.sh) >(./three.sh) >/dev/null
First in Bash and then in Z shell (zsh).
Bash (GNU bash, version 5.0.17(1))
$ echo "hello" | tee >(./one.sh) >(./two.sh) |./three.sh
three starts
stdin for three: hello
stdin for three: one starts
stdin for three: two starts
stdin for three: hello from two
stdin for three: hello from one
Why are the outputs of one.sh and two.sh mixed with the origin "hello" and passed to three.sh? I expected to see the output of one and two in standard output and only the "hello" is going to pass to three.sh.
Now the other command:
$ echo "hello" | tee >(./one.sh) >(./two.sh) >(./three.sh) >/dev/null
one starts
two starts
three starts
stdin for three: hello
hello from two
hello from one
<---!!!note here I don't have prompt unless I press Enter or Ctrl-c)
I redirect all standard output to /dev/null. Why do I see all output from all process substitution this time? Does it seem this behavior conflict with the one above?
Why don't I have the prompt after having executed the command?
Why does the command start in order one->two->three, but outputs come in 3->2->1? Even if I added sleep 3 in three.sh, the output is always 3-2-1. I know it should have something to do with standard input blocking, but I'd learn the exact reason.
Zsh (zsh 5.8 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu))
Both commands,
echo "hello" | tee >(./one.sh) >(./two.sh) >(./three.sh) >/dev/null
echo "hello" | tee >(./one.sh) >(./two.sh) |./three.sh
Give the expected result:
one starts
three starts
two starts
hello from two
hello from one
stdin for three: hello
It works as expected. But the order of the output is random, it seems that Z shell does something non-blocking here, and the order of the output is dependent on how long each script has been running. What exactly leads to the result?
echo "hello"|tee >(./one.sh) >(./two.sh) |./three.sh
There are two possible order of operations for the tee part of the pipeline
First
Redirect standard output to a pipe that's connected to ./three.sh's standard input.
Set up the pipes and subprocesses for the command substitutions. They inherit the same redirected standard output pipe used by tee.
Execute tee.
Second
Set up the pipes and subprocesses for the the command substitutions. They share the same default standard output - to the terminal.
Redirect tee's standard output to a pipe that's connected to ./three.sh's standard input. This redirection doesn't affect the pipes set up in step 1.
Execute tee.
bash uses the first set of operations, zsh uses the second. In both cases, the order you see output from your shell scripts in is controlled by your OS's process scheduler and might as well be random. In the case where you redirect tee's standard output to /dev/null, they both seem to follow the second scenario and set up the subprocesses before the parent tee's redirection. This inconsistency on bash's part does seem unusual and a potential source of subtle bugs.
I can't replicate the missing prompt issue, but that's with bash 4.4.20 - I don't have 5 installed on this computer.
Let's assume I have 3 shell scripts:
script_1.sh
#!/bin/bash
./script_3.sh
script_2.sh
#!/bin/bash
./script_3.sh
the problem is that in script_3.sh I want to know the name of the caller script.
so that I can respond differently to each caller I support
please don't assume I'm asking about $0 cause $0 will echo script_3 every time no matter who is the caller
here is an example input with expected output
./script_1.sh should echo script_1
./script_2.sh should echo script_2
./script_3.sh should echo user_name or root or anything to distinguish between the 3 cases?
Is that possible? and if possible, how can it be done?
this is going to be added to a rm modified script... so when I call rm it do something and when git or any other CLI tool use rm it is not affected by the modification
Based on #user3100381's answer, here's a much simpler command to get the same thing which I believe should be fairly portable:
PARENT_COMMAND=$(ps -o comm= $PPID)
Replace comm= with args= to get the full command line (command + arguments). The = alone is used to suppress the headers.
See: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604499/utilities/ps.html
In case you are sourceing instead of calling/executing the script there is no new process forked and thus the solutions with ps won't work reliably.
Use bash built-in caller in that case.
$ cat h.sh
#! /bin/bash
function warn_me() {
echo "$#"
caller
}
$
$ cat g.sh
#!/bin/bash
source h.sh
warn_me "Error: You did not do something"
$
$ . g.sh
Error: You did not do something
g.sh
$
Source
The $PPID variable holds the parent process ID. So you could parse the output from ps to get the command.
#!/bin/bash
PARENT_COMMAND=$(ps $PPID | tail -n 1 | awk "{print \$5}")
Based on #J.L.answer, with more in depth explanations, that works for linux :
cat /proc/$PPID/comm
gives you the name of the command of the parent pid
If you prefer the command with all options, then :
cat /proc/$PPID/cmdline
explanations :
$PPID is defined by the shell, it's the pid of the parent processes
in /proc/, you have some dirs with the pid of each process (linux). Then, if you cat /proc/$PPID/comm, you echo the command name of the PID
Check man proc
Couple of useful files things kept in /proc/$PPID here
/proc/*some_process_id*/exe A symlink to the last executed command under *some_process_id*
/proc/*some_process_id*/cmdline A file containing the last executed command under *some_process_id* and null-byte separated arguments
So a slight simplification.
sed 's/\x0/ /g' "/proc/$PPID/cmdline"
If you have /proc:
$(cat /proc/$PPID/comm)
Declare this:
PARENT_NAME=`ps -ocomm --no-header $PPID`
Thus you'll get a nice variable $PARENT_NAME that holds the parent's name.
You can simply use the command below to avoid calling cut/awk/sed:
ps --no-headers -o command $PPID
If you only want the parent and none of the subsequent processes, you can use:
ps --no-headers -o command $PPID | cut -d' ' -f1
You could pass in a variable to script_3.sh to determine how to respond...
script_1.sh
#!/bin/bash
./script_3.sh script1
script_2.sh
#!/bin/bash
./script_3.sh script2
script_3.sh
#!/bin/bash
if [ $1 == 'script1' ] ; then
echo "we were called from script1!"
elsif [ $1 == 'script2' ] ; then
echo "we were called from script2!"
fi
How can I determine the current shell I am working on?
Would the output of the ps command alone be sufficient?
How can this be done in different flavors of Unix?
There are three approaches to finding the name of the current shell's executable:
Please note that all three approaches can be fooled if the executable of the shell is /bin/sh, but it's really a renamed bash, for example (which frequently happens).
Thus your second question of whether ps output will do is answered with "not always".
echo $0 - will print the program name... which in the case of the shell is the actual shell.
ps -ef | grep $$ | grep -v grep - this will look for the current process ID in the list of running processes. Since the current process is the shell, it will be included.
This is not 100% reliable, as you might have other processes whose ps listing includes the same number as shell's process ID, especially if that ID is a small number (for example, if the shell's PID is "5", you may find processes called "java5" or "perl5" in the same grep output!). This is the second problem with the "ps" approach, on top of not being able to rely on the shell name.
echo $SHELL - The path to the current shell is stored as the SHELL variable for any shell. The caveat for this one is that if you launch a shell explicitly as a subprocess (for example, it's not your login shell), you will get your login shell's value instead. If that's a possibility, use the ps or $0 approach.
If, however, the executable doesn't match your actual shell (e.g. /bin/sh is actually bash or ksh), you need heuristics. Here are some environmental variables specific to various shells:
$version is set on tcsh
$BASH is set on bash
$shell (lowercase) is set to actual shell name in csh or tcsh
$ZSH_NAME is set on zsh
ksh has $PS3 and $PS4 set, whereas the normal Bourne shell (sh) only has $PS1 and $PS2 set. This generally seems like the hardest to distinguish - the only difference in the entire set of environment variables between sh and ksh we have installed on Solaris boxen is $ERRNO, $FCEDIT, $LINENO, $PPID, $PS3, $PS4, $RANDOM, $SECONDS, and $TMOUT.
ps -p $$
should work anywhere that the solutions involving ps -ef and grep do (on any Unix variant which supports POSIX options for ps) and will not suffer from the false positives introduced by grepping for a sequence of digits which may appear elsewhere.
Try
ps -p $$ -oargs=
or
ps -p $$ -ocomm=
If you just want to ensure the user is invoking a script with Bash:
if [ -z "$BASH" ]; then echo "Please run this script $0 with bash"; exit; fi
or ref
if [ -z "$BASH" ]; then exec bash $0 ; exit; fi
You can try:
ps | grep `echo $$` | awk '{ print $4 }'
Or:
echo $SHELL
$SHELL need not always show the current shell. It only reflects the default shell to be invoked.
To test the above, say bash is the default shell, try echo $SHELL, and then in the same terminal, get into some other shell (KornShell (ksh) for example) and try $SHELL. You will see the result as bash in both cases.
To get the name of the current shell, Use cat /proc/$$/cmdline. And the path to the shell executable by readlink /proc/$$/exe.
There are many ways to find out the shell and its corresponding version. Here are few which worked for me.
Straightforward
$> echo $0 (Gives you the program name. In my case the output was -bash.)
$> $SHELL (This takes you into the shell and in the prompt you get the shell name and version. In my case bash3.2$.)
$> echo $SHELL (This will give you executable path. In my case /bin/bash.)
$> $SHELL --version (This will give complete info about the shell software with license type)
Hackish approach
$> ******* (Type a set of random characters and in the output you will get the shell name. In my case -bash: chapter2-a-sample-isomorphic-app: command not found)
ps is the most reliable method. The SHELL environment variable is not guaranteed to be set and even if it is, it can be easily spoofed.
I have a simple trick to find the current shell. Just type a random string (which is not a command). It will fail and return a "not found" error, but at start of the line it will say which shell it is:
ksh: aaaaa: not found [No such file or directory]
bash: aaaaa: command not found
I have tried many different approaches and the best one for me is:
ps -p $$
It also works under Cygwin and cannot produce false positives as PID grepping. With some cleaning, it outputs just an executable name (under Cygwin with path):
ps -p $$ | tail -1 | awk '{print $NF}'
You can create a function so you don't have to memorize it:
# Print currently active shell
shell () {
ps -p $$ | tail -1 | awk '{print $NF}'
}
...and then just execute shell.
It was tested under Debian and Cygwin.
The following will always give the actual shell used - it gets the name of the actual executable and not the shell name (i.e. ksh93 instead of ksh, etc.). For /bin/sh, it will show the actual shell used, i.e. dash.
ls -l /proc/$$/exe | sed 's%.*/%%'
I know that there are many who say the ls output should never be processed, but what is the probability you'll have a shell you are using that is named with special characters or placed in a directory named with special characters? If this is still the case, there are plenty of other examples of doing it differently.
As pointed out by Toby Speight, this would be a more proper and cleaner way of achieving the same:
basename $(readlink /proc/$$/exe)
My variant on printing the parent process:
ps -p $$ | awk '$1 == PP {print $4}' PP=$$
Don't run unnecessary applications when AWK can do it for you.
Provided that your /bin/sh supports the POSIX standard and your system has the lsof command installed - a possible alternative to lsof could in this case be pid2path - you can also use (or adapt) the following script that prints full paths:
#!/bin/sh
# cat /usr/local/bin/cursh
set -eu
pid="$$"
set -- sh bash zsh ksh ash dash csh tcsh pdksh mksh fish psh rc scsh bournesh wish Wish login
unset echo env sed ps lsof awk getconf
# getconf _POSIX_VERSION # reliable test for availability of POSIX system?
PATH="`PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin getconf PATH`"
[ $? -ne 0 ] && { echo "'getconf PATH' failed"; exit 1; }
export PATH
cmd="lsof"
env -i PATH="${PATH}" type "$cmd" 1>/dev/null 2>&1 || { echo "$cmd not found"; exit 1; }
awkstr="`echo "$#" | sed 's/\([^ ]\{1,\}\)/|\/\1/g; s/ /$/g' | sed 's/^|//; s/$/$/'`"
ppid="`env -i PATH="${PATH}" ps -p $pid -o ppid=`"
[ "${ppid}"X = ""X ] && { echo "no ppid found"; exit 1; }
lsofstr="`lsof -p $ppid`" ||
{ printf "%s\n" "lsof failed" "try: sudo lsof -p \`ps -p \$\$ -o ppid=\`"; exit 1; }
printf "%s\n" "${lsofstr}" |
LC_ALL=C awk -v var="${awkstr}" '$NF ~ var {print $NF}'
My solution:
ps -o command | grep -v -e "\<ps\>" -e grep -e tail | tail -1
This should be portable across different platforms and shells. It uses ps like other solutions, but it doesn't rely on sed or awk and filters out junk from piping and ps itself so that the shell should always be the last entry. This way we don't need to rely on non-portable PID variables or picking out the right lines and columns.
I've tested on Debian and macOS with Bash, Z shell (zsh), and fish (which doesn't work with most of these solutions without changing the expression specifically for fish, because it uses a different PID variable).
If you just want to check that you are running (a particular version of) Bash, the best way to do so is to use the $BASH_VERSINFO array variable. As a (read-only) array variable it cannot be set in the environment,
so you can be sure it is coming (if at all) from the current shell.
However, since Bash has a different behavior when invoked as sh, you do also need to check the $BASH environment variable ends with /bash.
In a script I wrote that uses function names with - (not underscore), and depends on associative arrays (added in Bash 4), I have the following sanity check (with helpful user error message):
case `eval 'echo $BASH#${BASH_VERSINFO[0]}' 2>/dev/null` in
*/bash#[456789])
# Claims bash version 4+, check for func-names and associative arrays
if ! eval "declare -A _ARRAY && func-name() { :; }" 2>/dev/null; then
echo >&2 "bash $BASH_VERSION is not supported (not really bash?)"
exit 1
fi
;;
*/bash#[123])
echo >&2 "bash $BASH_VERSION is not supported (version 4+ required)"
exit 1
;;
*)
echo >&2 "This script requires BASH (version 4+) - not regular sh"
echo >&2 "Re-run as \"bash $CMD\" for proper operation"
exit 1
;;
esac
You could omit the somewhat paranoid functional check for features in the first case, and just assume that future Bash versions would be compatible.
None of the answers worked with fish shell (it doesn't have the variables $$ or $0).
This works for me (tested on sh, bash, fish, ksh, csh, true, tcsh, and zsh; openSUSE 13.2):
ps | tail -n 4 | sed -E '2,$d;s/.* (.*)/\1/'
This command outputs a string like bash. Here I'm only using ps, tail, and sed (without GNU extesions; try to add --posix to check it). They are all standard POSIX commands. I'm sure tail can be removed, but my sed fu is not strong enough to do this.
It seems to me, that this solution is not very portable as it doesn't work on OS X. :(
echo $$ # Gives the Parent Process ID
ps -ef | grep $$ | awk '{print $8}' # Use the PID to see what the process is.
From How do you know what your current shell is?.
This is not a very clean solution, but it does what you want.
# MUST BE SOURCED..
getshell() {
local shell="`ps -p $$ | tail -1 | awk '{print $4}'`"
shells_array=(
# It is important that the shells are listed in descending order of their name length.
pdksh
bash dash mksh
zsh ksh
sh
)
local suited=false
for i in ${shells_array[*]}; do
if ! [ -z `printf $shell | grep $i` ] && ! $suited; then
shell=$i
suited=true
fi
done
echo $shell
}
getshell
Now you can use $(getshell) --version.
This works, though, only on KornShell-like shells (ksh).
Do the following to know whether your shell is using Dash/Bash.
ls –la /bin/sh:
if the result is /bin/sh -> /bin/bash ==> Then your shell is using Bash.
if the result is /bin/sh ->/bin/dash ==> Then your shell is using Dash.
If you want to change from Bash to Dash or vice-versa, use the below code:
ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh (change shell to Bash)
Note: If the above command results in a error saying, /bin/sh already exists, remove the /bin/sh and try again.
I like Nahuel Fouilleul's solution particularly, but I had to run the following variant of it on Ubuntu 18.04 (Bionic Beaver) with the built-in Bash shell:
bash -c 'shellPID=$$; ps -ocomm= -q $shellPID'
Without the temporary variable shellPID, e.g. the following:
bash -c 'ps -ocomm= -q $$'
Would just output ps for me. Maybe you aren't all using non-interactive mode, and that makes a difference.
Get it with the $SHELL environment variable. A simple sed could remove the path:
echo $SHELL | sed -E 's/^.*\/([aA-zZ]+$)/\1/g'
Output:
bash
It was tested on macOS, Ubuntu, and CentOS.
On Mac OS X (and FreeBSD):
ps -p $$ -axco command | sed -n '$p'
Grepping PID from the output of "ps" is not needed, because you can read the respective command line for any PID from the /proc directory structure:
echo $(cat /proc/$$/cmdline)
However, that might not be any better than just simply:
echo $0
About running an actually different shell than the name indicates, one idea is to request the version from the shell using the name you got previously:
<some_shell> --version
sh seems to fail with exit code 2 while others give something useful (but I am not able to verify all since I don't have them):
$ sh --version
sh: 0: Illegal option --
echo $?
2
One way is:
ps -p $$ -o exe=
which is IMO better than using -o args or -o comm as suggested in another answer (these may use, e.g., some symbolic link like when /bin/sh points to some specific shell as Dash or Bash).
The above returns the path of the executable, but beware that due to /usr-merge, one might need to check for multiple paths (e.g., /bin/bash and /usr/bin/bash).
Also note that the above is not fully POSIX-compatible (POSIX ps doesn't have exe).
Kindly use the below command:
ps -p $$ | tail -1 | awk '{print $4}'
This one works well on Red Hat Linux (RHEL), macOS, BSD and some AIXes:
ps -T $$ | awk 'NR==2{print $NF}'
alternatively, the following one should also work if pstree is available,
pstree | egrep $$ | awk 'NR==2{print $NF}'
You can use echo $SHELL|sed "s/\/bin\///g"
And I came up with this:
sed 's/.*SHELL=//; s/[[:upper:]].*//' /proc/$$/environ
I have a script to process records in some files, it usually takes 1-2 hours. When it's running, it prints a progress of number of records processed.
Now, what I want to do is: when it's running with nohup, I don't want it to print the progress; it should print progress only when it run manually.
My question is how do I know if a bash script is running with nohup?
Suppose the command is nohup myscript.sh &. In the script, how do I get the nohup from command line? I tried to use $0, but it gives myscript.sh.
Checking for file redirections is not robust, since nohup can be (and often is) used in scripts where stdin, stdout and/or stderr are already explicitly redirected.
Aside from these redirections, the only thing nohup does is ignore the SIGHUP signal (thanks to Blrfl for the link.)
So, really what we're asking for is a way to detect if SIGHUP is being ignored. In linux, the signal ignore mask is exposed in /proc/$PID/status, in the least-significant bit of the SigIgn hex string.
Provided we know the pid of the bash script we want to check, we can use egrep. Here I see if the current shell is ignoring SIGHUP (i.e. is "nohuppy"):
$ egrep -q "SigIgn:\s.{15}[13579bdf]" /proc/$$/status && echo nohuppy || echo normal
normal
$ nohup bash -c 'egrep -q "SigIgn:\s.{15}[13579bdf]" /proc/$$/status && echo nohuppy || echo normal'; cat nohup.out
nohup: ignoring input and appending output to `nohup.out'
nohuppy
You could check if STDOUT is associated with a terminal:
[ -t 1 ]
You can either check if the parent pid is 1:
if [ $PPID -eq 1 ] ; then
echo "Parent pid=1 (runing via nohup)"
else
echo "Parent pid<>1 (NOT running via nohup)"
fi
or if your script ignores the SIGHUP signal (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/35638712/1011025):
if egrep -q "SigIgn:\s.{15}[13579bdf]" /proc/$$/status ; then
echo "Ignores SIGHUP (runing via nohup)"
else
echo "Doesn't ignore SIGHUP (NOT running via nohup)"
fi
One way, but not really portable would be to do a readlink on /proc/$$/fd/1 and test if it ends with nohup.out.
Assuming you are on the pts0 terminal (not really relevant, just to be able to show the result):
#!/bin/bash
if [[ $(readlink /proc/$$/fd/1) =~ nohup.out$ ]]; then
echo "Running under hup" >> /dev/pts/0
fi
But the traditional approach to such problems is to test if the output is a terminal:
[ -t 1 ]
Thank you guys. Check STDOUT is a good idea. I just find another way to do it. That is to test tty.
test tty -s check its return code. If it's 0 , then it's running on a terminal; if it's 1 then it's running with nohup.