Skip to main content

Where Bash Fits for Me

 

My friend Mirek wrote an interesting post recently: Where Rust fits for me. In it, he made a hierarchy of the programming languages he reaches for on a regular basis and why he picks a particular one for any specific task. I'd summarise it crudely like this:

  • Shell: only for very basic setup. Anything with non-trivial logic belongs somewhere else.
  • Python: his go-to but with caveats about the expected lifetime of the code: if it needs to persist without regular attention then Python won't do.
  • Rust: Whatever doesn't fit in the other two categories. 

I enjoy seeing people be thoughtful about their tools and reflect on the way that they work. Understanding what you do and why is a helpful first step on improving what you do and why, should you want to.

And I always want to.

So I thought I'd attempt the same kind of analysis and started listing languages that I use regularly:

Groovy: I use Groovy exclusively in Jenkins pipelines. It's useful to have a little familiarity with it but I would not choose to start any project in it. I have written a how-to guide for debugging pipelines because the whole ecosystem is so messy and unhelpful. 

Java and Kotlin: most of the codebases I work on are Kotlin, Java, or both. I don't feel fluent in either of these languages but I have written code from scratch in them and would reach for them again if I was writing tooling that I expect to be maintained by a team that's already using them.

Python: When I need a reasonable amount of logic, if I'm prototyping, if I think what I'm building will be collaborative, then Python is a good choice. I don't like or understand deeply the complete mess that is Python package management and the numerous different packages that people use to manage their package mangement. I do like the immediacy of an interpreter and the freedom to iterate quickly with a scripting language.

There are other languages that I need to use in specific product which I don't know how to write from scratch. I edit existing code in those languages but they aren't worth including here.

Side note: up to this point I felt like I was echoing Mirek's post as I'd intended. That changed when I started trying to write a couple of sentences about how I use the shell ... and found that I have a lot to say. This shouldn't be a surprise because I have written about the shell many times on this blog and I've lost count of how many colleagues I've introduced to its power and charms over the years. Yet still, surprise it was, and I couldn't trim my thoughts down, so I just went with it.

Shell and Linux utilities: I do a lot of exploratory testing of back-end services which means I am often inspecting HTTP traffic, payloads, log files, and telemetry data. There are a handful of shell commands and utilities (mostly Bash, but also Zsh) that I use frequently to help me find a way through, and the beauty of them is that they can be plumbed together in natural ways to answer the specific question I have at any given moment.  

I can compose those answers at the command line, interactively and iteratively but, once I have something that I think I want to re-use I can drop it into a script and suddenly it's a tool in its own right. There's no reimplementation, the script is simply the command or sequence of commands I already worked out.

Once it's in a script I can parameterise or loop or whatever to extend its scope, if I need to. The script is also documentation of what I did that can be attached to test notes or bug reports, or shared with colleagues, or serve as a starting point for another round of work with slightly different questions.

Occasionally I'll create something with general applicability and add it to my personal repo or a project repo. This can sometimes come about by accident, but it's more likely that I'll find I've been asking the same kind of question repeatedly and don't want to solve it from first principles any more.

An example of that from recent work would be a couple of scripts to dump a Mongo database and to diff two dumps. The first script (dump_db) will reach to a nominated remote environment, or a local Mongo, and export a database as a set of BSON files. It then converts these to JSON and uses jq to pretty print them to new files. The second script (diff_db) compares pretty-printed files across the two dumps and produces a list of the differences. 

This is extremely valuable when we change something about how an application persists its data, or are concerned that we might have side-effected that unintentionally. I can run one version of the application and dump Mongo, then do the same actions on another, and dump Mongo again. The diff gives us some idea whether the kind of changes we expect (or no change) occurred.

If I wasn't in a largely back-end world, would I still use command-line tools like these? For sure. I use shell for all sorts of tasks, such as searching codebases or applying the same configuration change across multiple repositories, or port-forwarding to some remote environment so that I can test against an application deployed there. 

If I wasn't in a Linux environment would I still use command-line tools like these? I think I probably would. On Windows I might go for Powershell or WSL to provide the interactivity and scope for experimentation with fast feedback that I generally want, at least initially. 

If I was starting from scratch in testing would I still use command-line tools like these?  I really hope so. Much of the way I work comes from seeing how others work, being curious about how I could work more efficiently, and just trying things. I'd like to think that I'd be open to learning what are, I agree, bizarre, unfamiliar, and sometimes unfathomable commands, options, and escaping policies in order to get the benefits.

So where does Bash fit for me? It fits in the places where I need it and where I don't know a better alternative. I'll continue to use it in those places until it doesn't.

--00-- 

I showed Mirek this post before I published it and asked for his comments, which I've edited down here:

Fully agreed about Groovy, and with a sentiment that working with Jenkins ecosystem is painful once things start to go off the rails.

Also fully agreed about the mess that is management of Python package management. Unfortunately that's one of the things I decided to understand deeper and I emerged with strong opinions. If I were starting today, one of the better tools is uv.  It's actually harder for me as I'm thinking about all the cruft I have accrued over the years, but ...

The properties of the shell that you mention are undeniably strong side of shell. Composability of commands and how much you can do with very basic tools. That you can write a command and then just put it in a file to turn into a script, and extend it from there. That it's easy to share these scripts, or store them in personal library.

I do use shell all the time, but usually I would choose specific tools. For JSON I would use fx for interactive usage, or I would write quick Python script to parse it and extract whatever I need (or use Python shell to do that). Honestly, I prefer that to learning arcane jq syntax.

I guess I didn't give shell justice in my blog post, but that post was really mostly about Rust. At the same time, I did create crazy things with shell in the past, and honestly, I would rather discourage that - just jump to proper programming language sooner. 

It's a tangent thought, but this conversation reminds me of when I was taking my first steps in programming. I saw all these robust, clean programs and I strove to write similar code. It took me some time and seeing work of some people to realize that sometimes it's fine to cut corners.

--00--

This is great. The tools we choose are dependent on multiple factors such as the tools we know, and know how to use well enough, which tools we think will fit the problem in front of us, whether we've recognised the problem correctly, whether we have time to find out, whether we have the appetite to look for a better tool, and so on. (I went deep into this in Take Your Pick.)

I come to my context with my background, Mirek to his with his, and you to yours with yours. So it's no surprise that we make different choices about which tool to start with, and why, and when to change to something else.

Staying alert to the rabbit hole, being open to try another way, and actively looking for new approaches that could be valuable feels like the obvious thing to do, to me. I believe I do that: between writing the first section of this post and writing this postscript, I've updated the Mongo dumper and differ to use a new tool, jd, that gives more helpful output than the earlier version, and removes some friction that had become annoying. 

If I needed to do more for that task I'd probably switch to Python because I feel like the quick value has been obtained from bash and I understand the task and data well enough to write a specialised tool. I just don't think it's worth investing in that right now.

Which brings me back to the question I posed earlier: where does Bash fit for me? And I think I have the same answer: it fits in the places where I need it and where I don't know a better alternative. I'll continue to use it in those places until it doesn't.
Image: Wikimedia

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Meet Me Halfway?

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "Stop answering my questions with questions." Sure, I can do that. In return, please stop asking me questions so open to interpretation that any answ...

The Best Programmer Dan Knows

  I was pairing with my friend Vernon at work last week, on a tool I've been developing. He was smiling broadly as I talked him through what I'd done because we've been here before. The tool facilitates a task that's time-consuming, inefficient, error-prone, tiresome, and important to get right. Vern knows that those kinds of factors trigger me to change or build something, and that's why he was struggling not to laugh out loud. He held himself together and asked a bunch of sensible questions about the need, the desired outcome, and the approach I'd taken. Then he mentioned a talk by Daniel Terhorst-North, called The Best Programmer I Know, and said that much of it paralleled what he sees me doing. It was my turn to laugh then, because I am not a good programmer, and I thought he knew that already. What I do accept, though, is that I am focussed on the value that programs can give, and getting some of that value as early as possible. He sent me a link to the ta...

Can Code, Can't Code, Is Useful

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "If testers can’t code, they’re of no use to us" My first reaction is to wonder what you expect from your testers. I am immediately interested ...

Beginning Sketchnoting

In September 2017 I attended  Ian Johnson 's visual note-taking workshop at  DDD East Anglia . For the rest of the day I made sketchnotes, including during Karo Stoltzenburg 's talk on exploratory testing for developers  (sketch below), and since then I've been doing it on a regular basis. Karo recently asked whether I'd do a Team Eating (the Linguamatics brown bag lunch thing) on sketchnoting. I did, and this post captures some of what I said. Beginning sketchnoting, then. There's two sides to that: I still regard myself as a beginner at it, and today I'll give you some encouragement and some tips based on my experience, to begin sketchnoting for yourselves. I spend an enormous amount of time in situations where I find it helpful to take notes: testing, talking to colleagues about a problem, reading, 1-1 meetings, project meetings, workshops, conferences, and, and, and, and I could go on. I've long been interested in the approaches I've evol...

How do I Test AI?

  Recently a few people have asked me how I test AI. I'm happy to share my experiences, but I frame the question more broadly, perhaps something like this: what kinds of things do I consider when testing systems with artificial intelligence components .  I freestyled liberally the first time I answered but when the question came up again I thought I'd write a few bullets to help me remember key things. This post is the latest iteration of that list. Caveats: I'm not an expert; what you see below is a reminder of things to pick up on during conversations so it's quite minimal; it's also messy; it's absolutely not a guide or a set of best practices; each point should be applied in context; the categories are very rough; it's certainly not complete.  Also note that I work with teams who really know what they're doing on the domain, tech, and medical safety fronts and some of the things listed here are things they'd typically do some or all of. Testing ...

Don't Know? Find Out!

In What We Know We Don't Know , Hillel Wayne crisply summarises a handful of research findings about software development, describes how the research is carried out and reviewed and how he explores it, and contrasts those evidence-based results with the pronouncements of charismatic thought leaders. He also notes how and why this kind of research is hard in the software world. I won't pull much from the talk because I want to encourage you to watch it. Go on, it's reasonably short, it's comprehensible for me at 1.25x, and you can skip the section on Domain-Driven Design (the talk was at DDD Europe) if that's not your bag. Let me just give the same example that he opens with: research shows that most code reviews focus more on the first file presented to reviewers rather than the most important file in the eye of the developer. What we should learn: flag the starting and other critical files to receive more productive reviews. You never even thought about that possi...

My Adidas

If you've met me anywhere outside of a wedding or funeral, a snowy day, or a muddy field in the last 20 years you'll have seen me in Adidas Superstar trainers. But why? This post is for April Cools' Club .  --00-- I'm the butt of many jokes in our house, but not having a good memory features prominently amongst them. See also being bald ("do you need a hat, Dad?"), wearing jeans that have elastane in them (they're very comfy but "oh look, he's got the jeggings on again!"), and finding joy in contorted puns ("no-one's laughing except you, you know that, right?") Which is why it's interesting that I have a very strong, if admittedly not complete, memory of the first time I heard Run DMC. Raising Hell , their third album, was released in the UK in May 1986 and I bought it pretty much immediately after hearing it on the evening show on Radio 1, probably presented by Janice Long, ...

Express, Listen, and Field

Last weekend I participated in the LLandegfan Exploratory Workshop on Testing (LLEWT) 2024, a peer conference in a small parish hall on Anglesey, north Wales. The topic was communication and I shared my sketchnotes and a mind map from the day a few days ago. This post summarises my experience report.  Express, Listen, and Field Just about the most hands-on, practical, and valuable training I have ever done was on assertiveness with a local Cambridge coach, Laura Dain . In it she introduced Express, Listen, and Field (ELF), distilled from her experience across many years in the women’s movement, business, and academia.  ELF: say your key message clearly and calmly, actively listen to the response, and then focus only on what is relevant to your needs. I blogged a little about it back in 2017 and I've been using it ever since. Assertiveness In a previous role, I was the manager of a test team and organised training for the whole ...

Going Underground

The map is not the territory. You've heard this before and I've quoted it before . The longer quote (due to Alfred Korzybski) from which the snappy soundbite originated adds some valuable context: A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. I was thinking about that this week as I came to a product new to me but quite mature with a very rich set of configuration options. When I say rich , I mean — without casting any shade, because I have been there and understand — it is set in multiple locations, has extensive potential effects, and is often difficult to understand.  For my current project I consider it crucial to get a non-shallow view of how this works and so I began to explore. While there is some limited documentation it is, as so often, not up to date so mostly I worked in the codebases. Yes, plural, because this product spans multiple r...

Not a Happy Place

  A few months ago I stopped having therapy because I felt I had stabilised myself enough to navigate life without it. For the time being, anyway.  I'm sure the counselling helped me but I couldn't tell you how and I've chosen not to look deeply into it. For someone who is usually pretty analytical this is perhaps an interesting decision but I knew that I didn't want to be second-guessing my counsellor, Sue, or mentally cross-referencing stuff that I'd researched while we were talking. And talk was what we mostly did, with Sue suggesting hardly any specific tools for me to try. One that she did recommend was finding a happy place to visualise, somewhere that I could be out of the moment for a moment to calm disruptive thoughts. (Something like this .) Surprisingly, I found that I couldn't conjure anywhere up inside my head. That's when I realised that I've always had difficulty seeing with my mind's eye but never called it out. If I try to imagine ev...