19 SC2006

Grzegorz Szymaszek edited this page 2024-11-03 10:32:57 +01:00

Table of Contents

• Use $(...) notation instead of legacy backticked `...`.
• Problematic code
• Correct code
• Rationale
• Exceptions
• Related resources:

Use $(...) notation instead of legacy backticked `...`.

Problematic code

echo "You are running on `uname`"

Correct code

echo "You are running on $(uname)"

Rationale

Backtick command substitution `...` is legacy syntax with several issues.

1. It has a series of undefined behaviors related to quoting in POSIX.
2. It imposes a custom escaping mode with surprising results.
3. It's exceptionally hard to nest.

$(...) command substitution has none of these problems, and is therefore strongly encouraged.

Exceptions

• Some legacy sh implementations (like Solaris) do not support $(...), it is necessary to use backtick command substitution there. See [mc-devel] [PATCH] Prefer $() to backticks in sh script and follow-ups.

Related resources:

• BashFaq: Why is $(...) preferred over `...` (backticks)?
• StackOverflow: What is the difference between $(command) and `command` in shell programming?
• shfmt will automatically convert the legacy syntax

ShellCheck

• Installation

  • CentOS6
  • More Installation Guides

• Usage

  • Directive
  • Ignore

• Integrating and extending

  • Misc. contributions
  • Azure Pipelines
  • Buildkite
  • CircleCI
  • DevGuide
  • Integration
  • JUnit
  • Phabricator
  • TravisCI
  • GitLab CI
  • Drone
  • GitHub Actions

• Severity

• Template

Each individual ShellCheck warning has its own wiki page like SC1000. Use GitHub Wiki's "Pages" feature above to find a specific one, or see Checks.