I'm rejecting some of the commits in thisPR mainly for:

• readability versus conciseness - readability is preferred (especially on an open source project).

Continuing:

• the helper scripts are compatible withBASH /ASH /DASH /MKSH shells & make extensive use of functions withlocal variables. POSIX may soon definelocal:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18597697/posix-compliant-way-to-scope-variables-to-a-function-in-a-shell-script

http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767

The only shell which does not supportlocal isKSH which definestypeset but this is not POSIX compliant either.

• Initialising variables withvar= isnot an error

• Quoting variables unnecessarily gives them the same colour as strings innano. Again I prefer readability.

• $* versus$@ : The implementation of$* has always been a problem and realistically should have been replaced with the behaviour of$@. In almost every case where coders use$*, they mean$@.$* Can cause bugs and even security holes in your software.

• get_options $@ -$@ is quoted inside the function itself

• replacingcurl with a path in$CURL will hide system configuration errors (curl not being in$PATH).

• runningcat on a file with multiple lines is not useless

• awk instead ofgrep - this is less readable

• adding$IS_CRON is not really needed.update-ngxblocker already has a-q option for quiet non-ANSI output designed for when run fromcron.

Commits which are OK:

• fix: shellcheck SC2059, use printf '..%s..' ""

• fix: shellcheck SC2230, use 'command -v' instead of 'wich' =>please fix the mispelling of which

• fix: shellcheck SC2062, quote the grep pattern

Other comments:

some of your commits had alignment issues (tabs versus spaces) - before making a local commit you should always rungit diff to check for alignment issues.

thisPR has been made on yourmaster branch. It is good practice to always create a repobranch for aPR to prevent issues merging the changes back into yourmaster

Just few comment:

• ksh supports local. it's an alias on typeset! (see:http://man.openbsd.org/ksh#Aliases )
• about 'awk', I do not agree at all ... but I would not argue more than that: it seems to me preferable to use a single tool, rather than 36, especially if the action remains understandable... simple to understand, simple to execute.
• ok, about your option -q ;)

I will create a new PR, in some days, with you notes.

Hi,

Is this previous fixd5ff386 about the management ot the printf messages, is ok, for you?!

Can i recreate it again on a new branch?

@hucste - I am happy to merge:

Commits which are OK:

• fix: shellcheck SC2230, use 'command -v' instead of 'wich' =>please fix the spelling of which

• fix: shellcheck SC2062, quote the grep pattern

• fix: shellcheck SC2059, use printf '..%s..' "" =>please remove the following change

@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ print_message() {msg="$@"if [ "$VERBOSE" != "N" ]; thenprintf "$msg"printf '%s\n' "$msg"fi}

I think it is clearer for new line formatting to be whereprint_message() is called from.

• As you have made thePR on yourmaster branch I think the easy way to fix this is to do ahard reset of your fork:

git checkout mastergit remote updategit reset --hard upstream/master --git push origin +master

• & create abranch to work on for the newPR

git checkout -b my-branch

• & add the 3 commits above to the newPR.

POSIX may soon definelocal:

http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767

FTR, the proposal was rejected on 2022-08-08.

0000767: Add built-in "local" - Austin Group Defect Tracker