Re: (shellcheck) SC2103

On 2025-03-05, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

All testing done with shellcheck version 0.10.0 and bash under Linux.
>
Shellcheck says that you should replace code like:
>
    cd somedir
    do_something
    cd .. # (Or, cd -, which is almost, but not exactly the same thing)
>
with
>
    (
    cd somedir
    do_something
    )

That obviously won't work if do_something has to set a variable
that is then visible to the rest of the script.

Forking a process just to preserve a current working directory
is wasteful; we wouldn't do that in a C program, where we might
open the current directory to be saved, and then fchdir back to it.

However, most of the actions in a shell script fork and exec
something anyway.

The ostensible rationale is that it is shorter/easier to code, but the real
rationale is that if the cd fails, putting it into a subshell "localizes"
the damage.

  save_pwd=$(pwd)   # local save_pwd=$(pwd) in shells that have local

  if cd somedir ; then
    ...
    cd "$save_pwd"
  else
    ...
  fi

but the more general pattern would be:
>
    cd somewhere;...;cd -

cd - will break if any of the steps in between happen to to cd;
it is hostile toward maintenance of the script.

By the way, we should also try to exploit the capability of commands to
do their own chdir.

E.g:

  save_pwd=$(pwd)
  cd somewhere
  tar czf "$save_pwd"/foo.tar.gz .
  cd "$save_pwd"

becomes

  tar -C somewhere -czf foo.tar.gz .

tar will change to somewhere for the sake of finding the
files, and will resolve the . argument relative to that location,
but the foo.tar.gz file is created in the original directory
where it was invoked.

Another utility with -C <dir> is make.


--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca