[PATCH v2 2/3] allow positional arguments with "run" command

[Rasmus Villemoes]

On 15/10/2020 17.05, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Rasmus,
> 
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 01:06, Rasmus Villemoes
> <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2020 05.34, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 01:21, Rasmus Villemoes
>>> <rasmus.villemoes at prevas.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  cmd/Kconfig        | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>  cmd/nvedit.c       |  7 ++++++-
>>>>  common/cli.c       | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>>  common/cli_hush.c  | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>  include/cli_hush.h |  9 +++++++++
>>>>  5 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where the previous discussion went. But please think
>>> about how we can add some tests here.
>>
>> Isn't that exactly what I do in 3/3? Or are you thinking of something else?
>>
> 
> Yes that's good, but is the plan now to take these patches rather than
> update to the latest hush? I was wondering is Buzybox has any tests
> for hush.

Well, updating the whole hush code is not, as I've said before,
something I can or will take on me ATM, and it's not even clear that
that would automatically provide real shell functions.

Whether "the plan" includes accepting these patches I can't say. I'm
just trying to plug a hole and make the U-Boot shell a little more
usable. It's somewhat similar to the setexpr command; we don't have
$((a+4)) arithmetic, but can achieve the same thing with an extra
command. Or askenv, which takes the place of 'read -p'. Or run, for that
matter, which combined with setenv can do much of what eval in a POSIX
shell could do. And with 3/3, there's a place to put tests of e.g.
setexpr (not that adding the boilerplate is hard, but it is a tedious
first step; once that is in place, adding extra test cases is somewhat
easier and natural).

Rasmus