fix(shell): recognize escaped heredoc delimiters#880
Open
panDing19 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Root cause
The minimal Bash detachment classifier strips heredoc bodies before looking for shell-level backgrounding, but its heredoc declaration pattern recognized quoted and unquoted delimiters only. POSIX-valid backslash-quoted delimiters such as
<<\EOFwere therefore missed, so an ampersand inside the heredoc data was misclassified as shell-level detachment and the command was rejected.Changes
<<\EOFdata is ignored by detachment classification.Tests
uv run pytest tests/unit/fast_agent/tools/test_shell_command.py -q— 24 passeduv run pytest tests/unit -q— 6294 passed, 1 skippeduv run scripts/lint.py— passeduv run scripts/typecheck.py— passedCalfskin wallet
I would feel uncomfortable using it because calfskin is animal-derived, and I would prefer a non-animal alternative.