Conversation
|
Apparently newlines are always converted to Windows has a separate issue with executing |
|
It turns out that Windows poses an extra issue. |
|
Currently investigating Windows behavior on branch |
|
would this fix the security issue described here? embarklabs/embark#1329 |
|
Hi all! I would like to clarify: this pull request adds a new feature to our module. It is not a security fix.
|
|
Thank you for the clarification @nfischer and your hard work! |
nfischer
force-pushed
the
simple-exec-alternative
branch
from
255ce33 to
9a27e96
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #866 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 97.14% 97.22% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 34 35 +1
Lines 1298 1332 +34
==========================================
+ Hits 1261 1295 +34
Misses 37 37
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
This adds an initial implementation of shell.cmd(), which is intended as the eventual replacement for shell.exec(). This PR does not fully implement the API, but demonstrates a simple and secure alternative, and will allow further iteration to cover other use cases in follow-up PRs. Design doc: https://shelljs.page.link/cmd-design Issue #495 Test: automated test suite
nfischer
force-pushed
the
simple-exec-alternative
branch
from
9a27e96 to
186412d
Compare
nfischer
dismissed
freitagbr’s stale review
freitagbr is no longer active with the project
shell.cmd() was originally implemented in #866, however was not yet exposed. This command should be ready for people to try out, so this exposes the command by default. This is still not a full implementation of everything in the https://shelljs.page.link/cmd-design design doc, however this completes the initial phase and is likely good enough to replace most use cases of synchronous shell.exec(). Fixes #495
shell.cmd() was originally implemented in #866, however was not yet exposed. This command should be ready for people to try out, so this exposes the command by default. This is still not a full implementation of everything in the https://shelljs.page.link/cmd-design design doc, however this completes the initial phase and is likely good enough to replace most use cases of synchronous shell.exec(). Fixes #495
shell.cmd() was originally implemented in #866, however was not yet exposed. This command should be ready for people to try out, so this exposes the command by default. This is still not a full implementation of everything in the https://shelljs.page.link/cmd-design design doc, however this completes the initial phase and is likely good enough to replace most use cases of synchronous shell.exec(). Fixes #495
shell.cmd() was originally implemented in shelljs#866, however was not yet exposed. This command should be ready for people to try out, so this exposes the command by default. This is still not a full implementation of everything in the https://shelljs.page.link/cmd-design design doc, however this completes the initial phase and is likely good enough to replace most use cases of synchronous shell.exec(). Fixes shelljs#495
4 participants
This adds an initial implementation of shell.cmd(), which is intended as
the eventual replacement for shell.exec(). This PR does not fully
implement the API, but demonstrates a simple and secure alternative, and
will allow further iteration to cover other use cases in follow-up PRs.
Design doc: https://shelljs.page.link/cmd-design
Issue #495
Test: automated test suite