Pros of ShellCheck

• More comprehensive analysis with a wider range of checks and suggestions
• Supports multiple shell dialects (bash, ksh, sh)
• Integrates with various editors and CI systems

Cons of ShellCheck

• Focuses on static analysis without automatic fixing
• May produce false positives in some cases
• Requires manual intervention to apply suggested fixes

Code Comparison

ShellCheck example:

# ShellCheck will flag this as an error
echo $VAR
# Suggestion: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting
echo "$VAR"

ShellHarden example:

# ShellHarden will automatically fix this
echo $VAR
# Fixed version:
echo "$VAR"

ShellCheck provides more detailed static analysis and supports multiple shell dialects, while ShellHarden focuses on automatically fixing common shell script issues. ShellCheck offers broader integration options but requires manual fixes, whereas ShellHarden applies fixes automatically but has a more limited scope. Both tools aim to improve shell script quality, with ShellCheck emphasizing comprehensive analysis and ShellHarden prioritizing automatic corrections for specific issues.

Pros of sh

• More comprehensive language support, including POSIX sh, Bash, and mksh
• Offers parsing, formatting, and interpretation capabilities
• Actively maintained with regular updates and improvements

Cons of sh

• Primarily focused on parsing and formatting, less emphasis on hardening scripts
• May require more setup and configuration for specific use cases
• Larger codebase and potentially steeper learning curve

Code Comparison

sh:

f, err := syntax.NewParser().Parse(strings.NewReader(src), "")
if err != nil {
    log.Fatal(err)
}
syntax.NewPrinter().Print(os.Stdout, f)

shellharden:

let mut file = File::open(path)?;
let mut content = String::new();
file.read_to_string(&mut content)?;
let hardened = harden(&content);
println!("{}", hardened);

Summary

sh is a more comprehensive tool for shell script parsing, formatting, and interpretation, supporting multiple shell dialects. It offers a wider range of features but may require more setup. shellharden, on the other hand, focuses specifically on hardening shell scripts, providing a simpler and more targeted approach to improving script safety and reliability. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the desired level of functionality.

Pros of bats-core

• Focused on shell script testing, providing a robust framework for unit tests
• Supports parallel test execution, improving performance for large test suites
• Integrates well with CI/CD pipelines and other testing tools

Cons of bats-core

• Limited to testing functionality, doesn't address shell script syntax or style issues
• Requires writing separate test files, potentially increasing maintenance overhead
• Steeper learning curve for those unfamiliar with testing frameworks

Code Comparison

bats-core example:

@test "addition using bc" {
  result="$(echo 2+2 | bc)"
  [ "$result" -eq 4 ]
}

shellharden example:

# Before
echo $foo

# After
echo "$foo"

Key Differences

shellharden focuses on improving shell script syntax and safety, automatically fixing common issues. It's a static analysis tool that helps prevent errors before runtime.

bats-core, on the other hand, is a testing framework for shell scripts. It allows developers to write and run tests to verify script functionality, but doesn't address syntax or style concerns.

While both tools aim to improve shell scripting, they serve different purposes. shellharden is best for enhancing script quality and preventing errors, while bats-core is ideal for ensuring script functionality through testing.

Pros of zx

• Allows writing shell scripts in JavaScript, providing better syntax and error handling
• Offers built-in promise-based functions for common shell operations
• Integrates well with Node.js ecosystem and npm packages

Cons of zx

• Requires Node.js runtime, which may not be available in all environments
• Learning curve for developers not familiar with JavaScript
• May be overkill for simple shell scripts or quick one-liners

Code Comparison

shellharden:

#!/bin/sh
echo "Hello, $(whoami)!"
for file in *.txt; do
    cat "$file"
done

zx:

#!/usr/bin/env zx
echo`Hello, ${await $`whoami`}!`
for (const file of await glob('*.txt')) {
    await $`cat ${file}`
}

Summary

shellharden focuses on improving existing shell scripts by making them more robust and secure, while zx provides a JavaScript-based alternative to traditional shell scripting. shellharden is better suited for enhancing existing shell scripts and maintaining POSIX compatibility, whereas zx offers a more modern approach with improved readability and access to JavaScript features. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements, target environment, and developer preferences.

Pros of Bats

• Focused on testing shell scripts, providing a robust framework for unit testing
• Supports test isolation and setup/teardown functions
• Integrates well with continuous integration systems

Cons of Bats

• Limited to testing functionality, doesn't address shell script hardening
• Requires learning a specific testing syntax and conventions
• May add complexity to simple shell script projects

Code Comparison

Shellharden example:

# Before
echo $var

# After
echo "$var"

Bats example:

@test "addition using bc" {
  result="$(echo 2+2 | bc)"
  [ "$result" -eq 4 ]
}

Key Differences

Shellharden focuses on improving shell script safety and robustness by automatically fixing common issues, while Bats is a testing framework for shell scripts. Shellharden modifies existing scripts to make them more secure, whereas Bats helps ensure script functionality through unit tests.

Shellharden is more suitable for developers looking to enhance script reliability without extensive manual changes. Bats is ideal for those implementing thorough testing practices in shell script development, especially in larger projects or continuous integration environments.

Pros of pure-sh-bible

• Comprehensive collection of shell scripting techniques and best practices
• Focuses on POSIX-compliant shell scripting, enhancing portability
• Includes practical examples and explanations for various shell operations

Cons of pure-sh-bible

• Lacks automated tools for enforcing best practices
• Does not provide real-time feedback or suggestions for script improvement
• May require more manual effort to implement recommended practices

Code Comparison

shellharden example:

shellharden --replace script.sh

pure-sh-bible example:

# String manipulation
${variable#pattern}    # Remove from start (non-greedy)
${variable##pattern}   # Remove from start (greedy)
${variable%pattern}    # Remove from end (non-greedy)
${variable%%pattern}   # Remove from end (greedy)

Summary

shellharden is a tool that automatically corrects and hardens shell scripts, while pure-sh-bible is a comprehensive guide to shell scripting best practices. shellharden offers automated improvements, whereas pure-sh-bible provides in-depth knowledge and techniques for manual implementation. Both projects aim to enhance shell script quality, but they approach the goal differently: shellharden through automation and pure-sh-bible through education and reference.