Support command line in executablePath
See original GitHub issueIf executablePath could support a command line, the users could easily use WSL with something like wsl shellcheck
or even the Docker version, with docker run [...] shellcheck
.
So we would not need to maintain custom logic such as the useWsl
one.
References https://github.com/timonwong/vscode-shellcheck/issues/87.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:9 (1 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Modifying the "Path to executable" of a windows service
When I looked at the "Path to executable" in "Services" the executed line already contained speech marks. So I had to make minor...
Read more >How to change path to executable for a Windows Service?
You can use the sc config command to change the path a service points to: SC CONFIG YourServiceName binPath= "C:\SomeDirectory\YourFile.EXE".
Read more >Bash option to get resolved executable path?
Having the resolved command would really help me debugging weird rvm / bundler issues. The -x option helps a lot but sometimes it...
Read more >CommandLineEventConsumer class - Win32 apps
The CommandLineEventConsumer class starts an arbitrary process in the local ... and the ExecutablePath property is used as the command line.
Read more >How to Add Executables to your PATH in Windows - Medium
To shed some light on this, I decided to put together a walkthrough on how to get Ruby running from the command line....
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
@beltaurus I really enjoyed reading your comment.
I totally agree with you regarding multiple configuration sources by the way, nonetheless,
.shellcheckrc
in our case does not accept all the possible configurations, just the ones which are writable in the scripts itself. That’s why the extension provides the “options”.Well, you convinced me. What do you think @timonwong?
I’m going to close this for now, as probably the use cases don’t seem to worth it. If anyone has any arguments, I can open this issue again.