Shell – An official standard / convention for a file extension for shell scripts to source

conventionsshellshell-scriptstandard

I was wondering if there is a convention for file type extensions for shell scripts you want to source instead of run. For example:

If I want to run this script in a subshell.
```
 ./script.sh 
```
If I want to remember to run this script from the current shell.
```
 . script.source 
```

Is there a convention (like POSIX for example) for a filetype in the second example? Something like .source or .sourceme?

Update

This question does not ask about any opinion. I clearly stated that I would like to know if there is a standardized file extension for this kind of scripts. This question is even less opinion-based than this well received question on a similar issue (Use .sh or .bash extension for bash scripts?).

Best Answer

I'd use .sh (for files in the POSIX sh language, .bash for non-sh-compatible bash files, that is the extension identifies the language the script is written in) for files intended to be sourced (or more generally not intended to be executed), and no extension for files that are meant to be executed.

You can also add a:

#! /bin/echo Please-source

she-bang, so that when executed by mistake (though I'd expect those files should not be given execution permissions, which would already prevent execution), you get a notice that it should be sourced instead.

Related Solutions

Shell – run shell scripts in a sequencing way

I assume you can run the script with: ./script1.sh (which start the script in a shell) instead of . script1.sh (which will source them in your current shell) ?

If so:

#!/bin/bash

./script1.sh   &&
{ ssh user@remote "cd /path/to/  && script2.sh" ; }  &&
./script3.sh   &&
./script4.sh

&& ensure that the following instructions is executed ONLY if the previous returned "0" (="ok") (so make sure your script does return the proper "0" if OK, and something else (a small positive integer, such as "1") if NOT OK).

(Note that you can have && at the end of a line, as I did here, and the following thing on the next line, without the need to \ the newline in-between. "&&" at the end of the line tells bash that the line can be continued on the following line. [thank to @Dennis for correcting me: I thought it also worked to not put a '\newline' when "&&" was on the next line, which is more readable... but doesn't work. If you want "&&" on the next line, you need to backslash the previous newline])

Bash – Use .sh or .bash Extension for Bash Scripts?

does using the .bash extension actually invoke bash or does it depend on system config / 1st shebang line.

If you do not use an interpreter explicitly, then the interpreter being invoked is determined by the shebang used in the script. If you use an interpreter specifically then the interpreter doesn't care what extension you give for your script. However, the extension exists to make it very obvious for others what kind of script it is.

[sreeraj@server ~]$ cat ./ext.py
#!/bin/bash
echo "Hi. I am a bash script"

See, .py extension to the bash script does not make it a python script.

[sreeraj@server ~]$ python ./ext.py
  File "./ext.py", line 2
    echo "Hi. I am a bash script"
                                ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Its always a bash script.

[sreeraj@server ~]$ ./ext.py
Hi. I am a bash script

Update

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Shell – run shell scripts in a sequencing way

Bash – Use .sh or .bash Extension for Bash Scripts?

Related Question