[MISC] Add shellcheck checks to ensure that those few shell scripts we have are "robust"

[yarikoptic]

TODO

• [x] remove TEMP commit and possibly a custom workflow if pre-commit picks it up too

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 87.93%. Comparing base (943c20e) to head (a89b1bf). Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

:exclamation: Current head a89b1bf differs from pull request most recent head a8a891c. Consider uploading reports for the commit a8a891c to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1774   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.93%   87.93%           
=======================================
  Files          16       16           
  Lines        1351     1351           
=======================================
  Hits         1188     1188           
  Misses        163      163           

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[yarikoptic]

oh, actually I have a problem with current pre-commit setup - it requires docker so fails now

ShellCheck v0.9.0........................................................Failed
- hook id: shellcheck
- exit code: 1

Executable `docker` not found

keeping it in draft, hopefully would come back to this.

[yarikoptic]

@effigies @sappelhoff - an easy one to reduce number of open prs by 1

[yarikoptic]

do we need more approvals here or could it be merged?? it is just a check to make a world a better place! @effigies do the honors - be the 3rd and press the button?

[sappelhoff]

Thanks for the ping @yarikoptic, we can merge this with two positive reviews and 5 days passed since the last change.

[yarikoptic]

Thanks for the ping @yarikoptic, we can merge this with two positive reviews and 5 days passed since the last change.

Could/should we automate that ? (e.g. 3 positive reviews and 5 days -- auto-merge)

[sappelhoff]

Could/should we automate that ? (e.g. 3 positive reviews and 5 days -- auto-merge)

i would be +1 for this if an additional precondition is that a certain (new) label is added to the PR, like an "automerge" label. Because for some PRs (as this one), an automerge shouldn't be controversial, whereas for some other PRs it might be.

[Remi-Gau]

We have an old issue, maybe closed, about automating this that was never acted upon because no big need, no big motivation to implement.

[yarikoptic]

drafted one in https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/pull/1823 for now

[sappelhoff]

We have an old issue, maybe closed, about automating this that was never acted upon because no big need, no big motivation to implement.

• https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/issues/147