628

I have a Bash shell script that invokes a number of commands.

I would like to have the shell script automatically exit with a return value of 1 if any of the commands return a non-zero value.

Is this possible without explicitly checking the result of each command?

For example,

dosomething1
if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then
    exit 1
fi

dosomething2
if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then
    exit 1
fi
2
  • 26
    In addition to set -e, also do set -u (or set -eu). -u puts an end to the idiotic, bug-hiding behavior that you can access any nonexistent variable and have a blank value produced with no diagnostics. Commented Feb 21, 2014 at 1:36
  • Unofficial Bash Strict Mode: redsymbol.net/articles/unofficial-bash-strict-mode Commented May 12, 2023 at 20:50

10 Answers 10

1010

Add this to the beginning of the script:

set -e

This will cause the shell to exit immediately if a simple command exits with a nonzero exit value. A simple command is any command not part of an if, while, or until test, or part of an && or || list.

See the bash manual on the "set" internal command for more details.

It's really annoying to have a script stubbornly continue when something fails in the middle and breaks assumptions for the rest of the script. I personally start almost all portable shell scripts with set -e.

If I'm working with bash specifically, I'll start with

set -Eeuo pipefail

This covers more error handling in a similar fashion. I consider these as sane defaults for new bash programs. Refer to the bash manual for more information on what these options do.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

10 Comments

That would work, but I like to use "#!/usr/bin/env bash" because I frequently run bash from somewhere other than /bin. And "#!/usr/bin/env bash -e" doesn't work. Besides, it's nice to have a place to modify to read "set -xe" when I want to turn on tracing for debugging.
Also, the flags on the shebang line are ignored if a script gets run as bash script.sh.
Just a note: If you declare functions inside the bash script, the functions will need to have set -e redeclared inside the function body if you want to extend this functionality.
Also, if you source your script, the shebang line will be irrelevent.
@JinKim That doesn't appear to be the case in bash 3.2.48. Try the following inside a script: set -e; tf() { false; }; tf; echo 'still here'. Even without set -e inside the body of tf(), execution is aborted. Perhaps you meant to say that set -e is not inherited by subshells, which is true.
|
279

To add to the accepted answer:

Bear in mind that set -e sometimes is not enough, specially if you have pipes.

For example, suppose you have this script

#!/bin/bash
set -e 
./configure  > configure.log
make

... which works as expected: an error in configure aborts the execution.

Tomorrow you make a seemingly trivial change:

#!/bin/bash
set -e 
./configure  | tee configure.log
make

... and now it does not work. This is explained here, and a workaround (Bash only) is provided:

#!/bin/bash
set -e 
set -o pipefail

./configure  | tee configure.log
make

2 Comments

Thank you for explaining the importance of having pipefail to go along with set -o !
It is possibly worth noting that combination of -o pipefail and -e work well in bash. But they don't in ksh (93) from where bash picked this feature. There an extra check after pipes is required to exit the shell with an error.
106

The if statements in your example are unnecessary. Just do it like this:

dosomething1 || exit 1

If you take Ville Laurikari's advice and use set -e then for some commands you may need to use this:

dosomething || true

The || true will make the command pipeline have a true return value even if the command fails so the the -e option will not kill the script.

3 Comments

I like this. Especially because the top answer is bash-centric (not at all clear to me whether/to what extent it applies to zsh scripting). And I could look it up, but your is just clearer, because logic.
set -e is not bash-centric - it is supported even on the original Bourne Shell.
For reference, these operators are referred to as control operators. More info here: opensource.com/article/18/11/control-operators-bash-shell
30

If you have cleanup you need to do on exit, you can also use 'trap' with the pseudo-signal ERR. This works the same way as trapping INT or any other signal; bash throws ERR if any command exits with a nonzero value:

# Create the trap with   
#    trap COMMAND SIGNAME [SIGNAME2 SIGNAME3...]
trap "rm -f /tmp/$MYTMPFILE; exit 1" ERR INT TERM
command1
command2
command3
# Partially turn off the trap.
trap - ERR
# Now a control-C will still cause cleanup, but
# a nonzero exit code won't:
ps aux | grep blahblahblah

Or, especially if you're using "set -e", you could trap EXIT; your trap will then be executed when the script exits for any reason, including a normal end, interrupts, an exit caused by the -e option, etc.

Comments

19

The $? variable is rarely needed. The pseudo-idiom command; if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then X; fi should always be written as if command; then X; fi.

The cases where $? is required is when it needs to be checked against multiple values:

command
case $? in
  (0) X;;
  (1) Y;;
  (2) Z;;
esac

or when $? needs to be reused or otherwise manipulated:

if command; then
  echo "command successful" >&2
else
  ret=$?
  echo "command failed with exit code $ret" >&2
  exit $ret
fi

4 Comments

Why "should always be written as"? I mean, why "should" it be so? When a command is long (think invoking GCC with a dozen options), then it is much more readable to run the command before checking the return status.
If a command is too long, you can break it up by naming it (define a shell function).
How do you capture the output of the command and check if it returned successful like this?
15

Run it with -e or set -e at the top.

Also look at set -u.

3 Comments

To potentially save others the need to read through help set: -u treats references to unset variables as errors.
so it's either set -u or set -e, not both? @lumpynose
@eric I retired several years ago. Even though I loved my work my aged brain has forgotten everything. Offhand I'd guess that you could use both together; bad wording on my part; I should have said "and/or".
11

On error, the below script will print a RED error message with the failed command and then will exit.
Put this at the top of your bash script:

# BASH error handling:
#   exit on command failure
set -e
#   keep track of the last executed command
trap 'LAST_COMMAND=$CURRENT_COMMAND; CURRENT_COMMAND=$BASH_COMMAND' DEBUG
#   on error: print the failed command
trap 'ERROR_CODE=$?; FAILED_COMMAND=$LAST_COMMAND; tput setaf 1; echo "ERROR: command \"$FAILED_COMMAND\" failed with exit code $ERROR_CODE"; tput sgr0;' ERR INT TERM

1 Comment

Are you sure put sgr0 is right thing? Shouldn't it be tput sgr0?
7
#!/bin/bash -e

should suffice.

Comments

4

An expression like

dosomething1 && dosomething2 && dosomething3

will stop processing when one of the commands returns with a non-zero value. For example, the following command will never print "done":

cat nosuchfile && echo "done"
echo $?
1

Comments

-3

I am just throwing in another one for reference since there was an additional question to Mark Edgars input and here is an additional example and touches on the topic overall:

[[ `cmd` ]] && echo success_else_silence

Which is the same as cmd || exit errcode as someone showed.

For example, I want to make sure a partition is unmounted if mounted:

[[ `mount | grep /dev/sda1` ]] && umount /dev/sda1

1 Comment

No, [[ cmd` ]]` is not the same thing. It's false if the command's output is empty and true otherwise, regardless of the command's exit status.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.