Using If statements folder and sub folders [closed]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












0















I am struggling to use IF statements.



A directory is passed to the script and that directory (which contains any number of subfolders) will either have .txt files in or .tmp files in and my ultimate goal is to copy all the .tmp files to one folder and and .txt files to another.



Currently have:



shopt -s nullglob
if [[ -n $(echo *.txt) ]]; then

elif [[ -n $(echo *.tmp) ]]; then

else
echo "nothing Found"
fi


But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?










share|improve this question















closed as unclear what you're asking by Jeff Schaller, Kusalananda, jimmij, Archemar, Mr Shunz Jan 30 at 15:25


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • 1





    What exactly are you trying to "check"?

    – steeldriver
    Jan 28 at 22:14











  • Please, edit your question and add your clarifications, including the one you gave as a comment to one of the answers (about moving .tmp and .txt files to different directories). It will help us in providing more focused and effective answers.

    – fra-san
    Jan 28 at 22:29











  • Could someone still tell me how to change this as i might use it in the future. thank you

    – madmiddle
    Jan 28 at 22:47











  • @fra-san but I would still like the answer to what i'm asking so that I have the answer for future use.

    – madmiddle
    Jan 29 at 0:47











  • @madmiddle Of course you can keep the original meaning of your question, no need to change it. You should just: add details as edits to your question, and not in comments (you can possibly leave a comment to a specific user, signaling that you updated your question); ask a new question, possibly linking to this one if you feel it would provide useful context, if you want to ask something significantly different.

    – fra-san
    Jan 29 at 8:06
















0















I am struggling to use IF statements.



A directory is passed to the script and that directory (which contains any number of subfolders) will either have .txt files in or .tmp files in and my ultimate goal is to copy all the .tmp files to one folder and and .txt files to another.



Currently have:



shopt -s nullglob
if [[ -n $(echo *.txt) ]]; then

elif [[ -n $(echo *.tmp) ]]; then

else
echo "nothing Found"
fi


But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?










share|improve this question















closed as unclear what you're asking by Jeff Schaller, Kusalananda, jimmij, Archemar, Mr Shunz Jan 30 at 15:25


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.













  • 1





    What exactly are you trying to "check"?

    – steeldriver
    Jan 28 at 22:14











  • Please, edit your question and add your clarifications, including the one you gave as a comment to one of the answers (about moving .tmp and .txt files to different directories). It will help us in providing more focused and effective answers.

    – fra-san
    Jan 28 at 22:29











  • Could someone still tell me how to change this as i might use it in the future. thank you

    – madmiddle
    Jan 28 at 22:47











  • @fra-san but I would still like the answer to what i'm asking so that I have the answer for future use.

    – madmiddle
    Jan 29 at 0:47











  • @madmiddle Of course you can keep the original meaning of your question, no need to change it. You should just: add details as edits to your question, and not in comments (you can possibly leave a comment to a specific user, signaling that you updated your question); ask a new question, possibly linking to this one if you feel it would provide useful context, if you want to ask something significantly different.

    – fra-san
    Jan 29 at 8:06














0












0








0








I am struggling to use IF statements.



A directory is passed to the script and that directory (which contains any number of subfolders) will either have .txt files in or .tmp files in and my ultimate goal is to copy all the .tmp files to one folder and and .txt files to another.



Currently have:



shopt -s nullglob
if [[ -n $(echo *.txt) ]]; then

elif [[ -n $(echo *.tmp) ]]; then

else
echo "nothing Found"
fi


But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?










share|improve this question
















I am struggling to use IF statements.



A directory is passed to the script and that directory (which contains any number of subfolders) will either have .txt files in or .tmp files in and my ultimate goal is to copy all the .tmp files to one folder and and .txt files to another.



Currently have:



shopt -s nullglob
if [[ -n $(echo *.txt) ]]; then

elif [[ -n $(echo *.tmp) ]]; then

else
echo "nothing Found"
fi


But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?







bash shell






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 30 at 2:16







madmiddle

















asked Jan 28 at 22:09









madmiddlemadmiddle

625




625




closed as unclear what you're asking by Jeff Schaller, Kusalananda, jimmij, Archemar, Mr Shunz Jan 30 at 15:25


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









closed as unclear what you're asking by Jeff Schaller, Kusalananda, jimmij, Archemar, Mr Shunz Jan 30 at 15:25


Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 1





    What exactly are you trying to "check"?

    – steeldriver
    Jan 28 at 22:14











  • Please, edit your question and add your clarifications, including the one you gave as a comment to one of the answers (about moving .tmp and .txt files to different directories). It will help us in providing more focused and effective answers.

    – fra-san
    Jan 28 at 22:29











  • Could someone still tell me how to change this as i might use it in the future. thank you

    – madmiddle
    Jan 28 at 22:47











  • @fra-san but I would still like the answer to what i'm asking so that I have the answer for future use.

    – madmiddle
    Jan 29 at 0:47











  • @madmiddle Of course you can keep the original meaning of your question, no need to change it. You should just: add details as edits to your question, and not in comments (you can possibly leave a comment to a specific user, signaling that you updated your question); ask a new question, possibly linking to this one if you feel it would provide useful context, if you want to ask something significantly different.

    – fra-san
    Jan 29 at 8:06













  • 1





    What exactly are you trying to "check"?

    – steeldriver
    Jan 28 at 22:14











  • Please, edit your question and add your clarifications, including the one you gave as a comment to one of the answers (about moving .tmp and .txt files to different directories). It will help us in providing more focused and effective answers.

    – fra-san
    Jan 28 at 22:29











  • Could someone still tell me how to change this as i might use it in the future. thank you

    – madmiddle
    Jan 28 at 22:47











  • @fra-san but I would still like the answer to what i'm asking so that I have the answer for future use.

    – madmiddle
    Jan 29 at 0:47











  • @madmiddle Of course you can keep the original meaning of your question, no need to change it. You should just: add details as edits to your question, and not in comments (you can possibly leave a comment to a specific user, signaling that you updated your question); ask a new question, possibly linking to this one if you feel it would provide useful context, if you want to ask something significantly different.

    – fra-san
    Jan 29 at 8:06








1




1





What exactly are you trying to "check"?

– steeldriver
Jan 28 at 22:14





What exactly are you trying to "check"?

– steeldriver
Jan 28 at 22:14













Please, edit your question and add your clarifications, including the one you gave as a comment to one of the answers (about moving .tmp and .txt files to different directories). It will help us in providing more focused and effective answers.

– fra-san
Jan 28 at 22:29





Please, edit your question and add your clarifications, including the one you gave as a comment to one of the answers (about moving .tmp and .txt files to different directories). It will help us in providing more focused and effective answers.

– fra-san
Jan 28 at 22:29













Could someone still tell me how to change this as i might use it in the future. thank you

– madmiddle
Jan 28 at 22:47





Could someone still tell me how to change this as i might use it in the future. thank you

– madmiddle
Jan 28 at 22:47













@fra-san but I would still like the answer to what i'm asking so that I have the answer for future use.

– madmiddle
Jan 29 at 0:47





@fra-san but I would still like the answer to what i'm asking so that I have the answer for future use.

– madmiddle
Jan 29 at 0:47













@madmiddle Of course you can keep the original meaning of your question, no need to change it. You should just: add details as edits to your question, and not in comments (you can possibly leave a comment to a specific user, signaling that you updated your question); ask a new question, possibly linking to this one if you feel it would provide useful context, if you want to ask something significantly different.

– fra-san
Jan 29 at 8:06






@madmiddle Of course you can keep the original meaning of your question, no need to change it. You should just: add details as edits to your question, and not in comments (you can possibly leave a comment to a specific user, signaling that you updated your question); ask a new question, possibly linking to this one if you feel it would provide useful context, if you want to ask something significantly different.

– fra-san
Jan 29 at 8:06











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3














You'll want to use the find command:



find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +
find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.tmp' -exec cp -t "$tmp_destination" '' +





share|improve this answer























  • that seems logical to me thank you. Can i throw something else into the pot. I need it to ignore files names that have 'test' in the name. would that be something like: find "$start_dir" -type f -name '.txt' -and -not -name '*test' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +

    – madmiddle
    Jan 28 at 22:31












  • compound tests get a little messy because find uses some of the same syntax as the shell, so you need to start escaping (or quoting, like I did in my answer). Try this: find "$dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec ... -- don't forget to read your find(1) man page.

    – glenn jackman
    Jan 28 at 22:48












  • I couldn't get it to work properly with the -t saying that it was an illegal option for cp. I have got the following to work though: find "$start_dir -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; or find "$start_dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; if that makes any difference.

    – madmiddle
    Jan 29 at 0:28











  • -t is an option for GNU cp

    – glenn jackman
    Jan 29 at 0:38






  • 1





    @madmiddle Please update your question with ALL the requirements rather than asking followup questions in comments. As long as you are unclear about what your question really is, we are unclear of what your question is. This in turn makes it eligible for closing, as "unclear".

    – Kusalananda
    Jan 29 at 6:49


















2















But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?




Well, a normal glob doesn't recurse to subdirectories. Since you're using shopt, you're probably using Bash, which supports the **/ notation for recursive globs, provided you set shopt -s globstar. With it set, **/*.txt would expand to the all files matching *.txt also in subdirectories of the current directory.






share|improve this answer






























    1














    ikkachu explained bash can do recursive globbing, but didn't say how. So, let's show how:



    shopt -s globstar extglob nullglob
    txt_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).txt)
    if (( $#txt_files )); then
    cp -t "$txt_files[@]" $txt_destination
    fi

    tmp_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).tmp)
    if (( $#tmp_files )); then
    cp -t "$tmp_files[@]" $tmp_destination
    fi



    zsh has been able to do this for over a decade, if I remember correctly. If you're using zsh rather than bash:



    setopt extendedglob
    txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
    if (( $#txt_files )) cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination

    tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
    if (( $#tmp_files )) cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination


    Or in a more C style:



    setopt extendedglob nullglob
    txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(.) )
    if [[ $#txt_files != 0 ]]
    cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination


    tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(.) )
    if [[ $#tmp_files != 0 ]]
    cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination



    I didn't forget any quotes there; zsh keeps track of array element boundaries rather than just breaking on spaces. The semicolons after [[ ]] tests are also optional.






    share|improve this answer

























    • only just starting out but i've noticed that the script begins with #!/bin/bash

      – madmiddle
      Jan 29 at 0:41











    • How would i go about writing that in Bash please ?

      – madmiddle
      Jan 29 at 0:51











    • Most of them start with #!/bin/bash. zsh may generally be ahead of bash in terms of capability, but bash is always far more popular. That said, it looks like it's pretty close to the point where I could consider using it for my shell in a pinch. It now has autocd, associative arrays, menu completion, and most of the other stuff I use. Of course, there's the learning curve, as it does all of those things differently than I'm used to.

      – Ed Grimm
      Jan 29 at 1:53












    • OK, I think I'm done futzing with doing this in bash now. And since this is a bash question, even though it wasn't tagged that way, I've put the bash answer first.

      – Ed Grimm
      Jan 29 at 2:07






    • 1





      @madmiddle If you have restrictions on the type of shell used, then mention this in the question. Currently, you are writing a bash script (which is evident from the use of shopt) but you never mention bash in the question and you have only tagged the question with shell.

      – Kusalananda
      Jan 29 at 7:40

















    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    You'll want to use the find command:



    find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +
    find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.tmp' -exec cp -t "$tmp_destination" '' +





    share|improve this answer























    • that seems logical to me thank you. Can i throw something else into the pot. I need it to ignore files names that have 'test' in the name. would that be something like: find "$start_dir" -type f -name '.txt' -and -not -name '*test' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +

      – madmiddle
      Jan 28 at 22:31












    • compound tests get a little messy because find uses some of the same syntax as the shell, so you need to start escaping (or quoting, like I did in my answer). Try this: find "$dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec ... -- don't forget to read your find(1) man page.

      – glenn jackman
      Jan 28 at 22:48












    • I couldn't get it to work properly with the -t saying that it was an illegal option for cp. I have got the following to work though: find "$start_dir -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; or find "$start_dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; if that makes any difference.

      – madmiddle
      Jan 29 at 0:28











    • -t is an option for GNU cp

      – glenn jackman
      Jan 29 at 0:38






    • 1





      @madmiddle Please update your question with ALL the requirements rather than asking followup questions in comments. As long as you are unclear about what your question really is, we are unclear of what your question is. This in turn makes it eligible for closing, as "unclear".

      – Kusalananda
      Jan 29 at 6:49















    3














    You'll want to use the find command:



    find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +
    find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.tmp' -exec cp -t "$tmp_destination" '' +





    share|improve this answer























    • that seems logical to me thank you. Can i throw something else into the pot. I need it to ignore files names that have 'test' in the name. would that be something like: find "$start_dir" -type f -name '.txt' -and -not -name '*test' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +

      – madmiddle
      Jan 28 at 22:31












    • compound tests get a little messy because find uses some of the same syntax as the shell, so you need to start escaping (or quoting, like I did in my answer). Try this: find "$dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec ... -- don't forget to read your find(1) man page.

      – glenn jackman
      Jan 28 at 22:48












    • I couldn't get it to work properly with the -t saying that it was an illegal option for cp. I have got the following to work though: find "$start_dir -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; or find "$start_dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; if that makes any difference.

      – madmiddle
      Jan 29 at 0:28











    • -t is an option for GNU cp

      – glenn jackman
      Jan 29 at 0:38






    • 1





      @madmiddle Please update your question with ALL the requirements rather than asking followup questions in comments. As long as you are unclear about what your question really is, we are unclear of what your question is. This in turn makes it eligible for closing, as "unclear".

      – Kusalananda
      Jan 29 at 6:49













    3












    3








    3







    You'll want to use the find command:



    find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +
    find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.tmp' -exec cp -t "$tmp_destination" '' +





    share|improve this answer













    You'll want to use the find command:



    find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +
    find "$start_dir" -type f -name '*.tmp' -exec cp -t "$tmp_destination" '' +






    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Jan 28 at 22:25









    glenn jackmanglenn jackman

    51.7k572111




    51.7k572111












    • that seems logical to me thank you. Can i throw something else into the pot. I need it to ignore files names that have 'test' in the name. would that be something like: find "$start_dir" -type f -name '.txt' -and -not -name '*test' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +

      – madmiddle
      Jan 28 at 22:31












    • compound tests get a little messy because find uses some of the same syntax as the shell, so you need to start escaping (or quoting, like I did in my answer). Try this: find "$dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec ... -- don't forget to read your find(1) man page.

      – glenn jackman
      Jan 28 at 22:48












    • I couldn't get it to work properly with the -t saying that it was an illegal option for cp. I have got the following to work though: find "$start_dir -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; or find "$start_dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; if that makes any difference.

      – madmiddle
      Jan 29 at 0:28











    • -t is an option for GNU cp

      – glenn jackman
      Jan 29 at 0:38






    • 1





      @madmiddle Please update your question with ALL the requirements rather than asking followup questions in comments. As long as you are unclear about what your question really is, we are unclear of what your question is. This in turn makes it eligible for closing, as "unclear".

      – Kusalananda
      Jan 29 at 6:49

















    • that seems logical to me thank you. Can i throw something else into the pot. I need it to ignore files names that have 'test' in the name. would that be something like: find "$start_dir" -type f -name '.txt' -and -not -name '*test' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +

      – madmiddle
      Jan 28 at 22:31












    • compound tests get a little messy because find uses some of the same syntax as the shell, so you need to start escaping (or quoting, like I did in my answer). Try this: find "$dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec ... -- don't forget to read your find(1) man page.

      – glenn jackman
      Jan 28 at 22:48












    • I couldn't get it to work properly with the -t saying that it was an illegal option for cp. I have got the following to work though: find "$start_dir -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; or find "$start_dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; if that makes any difference.

      – madmiddle
      Jan 29 at 0:28











    • -t is an option for GNU cp

      – glenn jackman
      Jan 29 at 0:38






    • 1





      @madmiddle Please update your question with ALL the requirements rather than asking followup questions in comments. As long as you are unclear about what your question really is, we are unclear of what your question is. This in turn makes it eligible for closing, as "unclear".

      – Kusalananda
      Jan 29 at 6:49
















    that seems logical to me thank you. Can i throw something else into the pot. I need it to ignore files names that have 'test' in the name. would that be something like: find "$start_dir" -type f -name '.txt' -and -not -name '*test' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +

    – madmiddle
    Jan 28 at 22:31






    that seems logical to me thank you. Can i throw something else into the pot. I need it to ignore files names that have 'test' in the name. would that be something like: find "$start_dir" -type f -name '.txt' -and -not -name '*test' -exec cp -t "$txt_destination" '' +

    – madmiddle
    Jan 28 at 22:31














    compound tests get a little messy because find uses some of the same syntax as the shell, so you need to start escaping (or quoting, like I did in my answer). Try this: find "$dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec ... -- don't forget to read your find(1) man page.

    – glenn jackman
    Jan 28 at 22:48






    compound tests get a little messy because find uses some of the same syntax as the shell, so you need to start escaping (or quoting, like I did in my answer). Try this: find "$dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec ... -- don't forget to read your find(1) man page.

    – glenn jackman
    Jan 28 at 22:48














    I couldn't get it to work properly with the -t saying that it was an illegal option for cp. I have got the following to work though: find "$start_dir -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; or find "$start_dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; if that makes any difference.

    – madmiddle
    Jan 29 at 0:28





    I couldn't get it to work properly with the -t saying that it was an illegal option for cp. I have got the following to work though: find "$start_dir -type f -name '*.txt' -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; or find "$start_dir" -type f ( -name '*txt' -and ! -name '*test*' ) -exec cp '' "$txt_destination" ; if that makes any difference.

    – madmiddle
    Jan 29 at 0:28













    -t is an option for GNU cp

    – glenn jackman
    Jan 29 at 0:38





    -t is an option for GNU cp

    – glenn jackman
    Jan 29 at 0:38




    1




    1





    @madmiddle Please update your question with ALL the requirements rather than asking followup questions in comments. As long as you are unclear about what your question really is, we are unclear of what your question is. This in turn makes it eligible for closing, as "unclear".

    – Kusalananda
    Jan 29 at 6:49





    @madmiddle Please update your question with ALL the requirements rather than asking followup questions in comments. As long as you are unclear about what your question really is, we are unclear of what your question is. This in turn makes it eligible for closing, as "unclear".

    – Kusalananda
    Jan 29 at 6:49













    2















    But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?




    Well, a normal glob doesn't recurse to subdirectories. Since you're using shopt, you're probably using Bash, which supports the **/ notation for recursive globs, provided you set shopt -s globstar. With it set, **/*.txt would expand to the all files matching *.txt also in subdirectories of the current directory.






    share|improve this answer



























      2















      But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?




      Well, a normal glob doesn't recurse to subdirectories. Since you're using shopt, you're probably using Bash, which supports the **/ notation for recursive globs, provided you set shopt -s globstar. With it set, **/*.txt would expand to the all files matching *.txt also in subdirectories of the current directory.






      share|improve this answer

























        2












        2








        2








        But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?




        Well, a normal glob doesn't recurse to subdirectories. Since you're using shopt, you're probably using Bash, which supports the **/ notation for recursive globs, provided you set shopt -s globstar. With it set, **/*.txt would expand to the all files matching *.txt also in subdirectories of the current directory.






        share|improve this answer














        But it doesn't check the sub directories. Is there something missing?




        Well, a normal glob doesn't recurse to subdirectories. Since you're using shopt, you're probably using Bash, which supports the **/ notation for recursive globs, provided you set shopt -s globstar. With it set, **/*.txt would expand to the all files matching *.txt also in subdirectories of the current directory.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Jan 29 at 0:09









        ilkkachuilkkachu

        59k892166




        59k892166





















            1














            ikkachu explained bash can do recursive globbing, but didn't say how. So, let's show how:



            shopt -s globstar extglob nullglob
            txt_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).txt)
            if (( $#txt_files )); then
            cp -t "$txt_files[@]" $txt_destination
            fi

            tmp_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).tmp)
            if (( $#tmp_files )); then
            cp -t "$tmp_files[@]" $tmp_destination
            fi



            zsh has been able to do this for over a decade, if I remember correctly. If you're using zsh rather than bash:



            setopt extendedglob
            txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
            if (( $#txt_files )) cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination

            tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
            if (( $#tmp_files )) cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination


            Or in a more C style:



            setopt extendedglob nullglob
            txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(.) )
            if [[ $#txt_files != 0 ]]
            cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination


            tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(.) )
            if [[ $#tmp_files != 0 ]]
            cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination



            I didn't forget any quotes there; zsh keeps track of array element boundaries rather than just breaking on spaces. The semicolons after [[ ]] tests are also optional.






            share|improve this answer

























            • only just starting out but i've noticed that the script begins with #!/bin/bash

              – madmiddle
              Jan 29 at 0:41











            • How would i go about writing that in Bash please ?

              – madmiddle
              Jan 29 at 0:51











            • Most of them start with #!/bin/bash. zsh may generally be ahead of bash in terms of capability, but bash is always far more popular. That said, it looks like it's pretty close to the point where I could consider using it for my shell in a pinch. It now has autocd, associative arrays, menu completion, and most of the other stuff I use. Of course, there's the learning curve, as it does all of those things differently than I'm used to.

              – Ed Grimm
              Jan 29 at 1:53












            • OK, I think I'm done futzing with doing this in bash now. And since this is a bash question, even though it wasn't tagged that way, I've put the bash answer first.

              – Ed Grimm
              Jan 29 at 2:07






            • 1





              @madmiddle If you have restrictions on the type of shell used, then mention this in the question. Currently, you are writing a bash script (which is evident from the use of shopt) but you never mention bash in the question and you have only tagged the question with shell.

              – Kusalananda
              Jan 29 at 7:40















            1














            ikkachu explained bash can do recursive globbing, but didn't say how. So, let's show how:



            shopt -s globstar extglob nullglob
            txt_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).txt)
            if (( $#txt_files )); then
            cp -t "$txt_files[@]" $txt_destination
            fi

            tmp_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).tmp)
            if (( $#tmp_files )); then
            cp -t "$tmp_files[@]" $tmp_destination
            fi



            zsh has been able to do this for over a decade, if I remember correctly. If you're using zsh rather than bash:



            setopt extendedglob
            txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
            if (( $#txt_files )) cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination

            tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
            if (( $#tmp_files )) cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination


            Or in a more C style:



            setopt extendedglob nullglob
            txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(.) )
            if [[ $#txt_files != 0 ]]
            cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination


            tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(.) )
            if [[ $#tmp_files != 0 ]]
            cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination



            I didn't forget any quotes there; zsh keeps track of array element boundaries rather than just breaking on spaces. The semicolons after [[ ]] tests are also optional.






            share|improve this answer

























            • only just starting out but i've noticed that the script begins with #!/bin/bash

              – madmiddle
              Jan 29 at 0:41











            • How would i go about writing that in Bash please ?

              – madmiddle
              Jan 29 at 0:51











            • Most of them start with #!/bin/bash. zsh may generally be ahead of bash in terms of capability, but bash is always far more popular. That said, it looks like it's pretty close to the point where I could consider using it for my shell in a pinch. It now has autocd, associative arrays, menu completion, and most of the other stuff I use. Of course, there's the learning curve, as it does all of those things differently than I'm used to.

              – Ed Grimm
              Jan 29 at 1:53












            • OK, I think I'm done futzing with doing this in bash now. And since this is a bash question, even though it wasn't tagged that way, I've put the bash answer first.

              – Ed Grimm
              Jan 29 at 2:07






            • 1





              @madmiddle If you have restrictions on the type of shell used, then mention this in the question. Currently, you are writing a bash script (which is evident from the use of shopt) but you never mention bash in the question and you have only tagged the question with shell.

              – Kusalananda
              Jan 29 at 7:40













            1












            1








            1







            ikkachu explained bash can do recursive globbing, but didn't say how. So, let's show how:



            shopt -s globstar extglob nullglob
            txt_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).txt)
            if (( $#txt_files )); then
            cp -t "$txt_files[@]" $txt_destination
            fi

            tmp_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).tmp)
            if (( $#tmp_files )); then
            cp -t "$tmp_files[@]" $tmp_destination
            fi



            zsh has been able to do this for over a decade, if I remember correctly. If you're using zsh rather than bash:



            setopt extendedglob
            txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
            if (( $#txt_files )) cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination

            tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
            if (( $#tmp_files )) cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination


            Or in a more C style:



            setopt extendedglob nullglob
            txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(.) )
            if [[ $#txt_files != 0 ]]
            cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination


            tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(.) )
            if [[ $#tmp_files != 0 ]]
            cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination



            I didn't forget any quotes there; zsh keeps track of array element boundaries rather than just breaking on spaces. The semicolons after [[ ]] tests are also optional.






            share|improve this answer















            ikkachu explained bash can do recursive globbing, but didn't say how. So, let's show how:



            shopt -s globstar extglob nullglob
            txt_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).txt)
            if (( $#txt_files )); then
            cp -t "$txt_files[@]" $txt_destination
            fi

            tmp_files=(**/!(*test*|*sample*).tmp)
            if (( $#tmp_files )); then
            cp -t "$tmp_files[@]" $tmp_destination
            fi



            zsh has been able to do this for over a decade, if I remember correctly. If you're using zsh rather than bash:



            setopt extendedglob
            txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
            if (( $#txt_files )) cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination

            tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(N.) )
            if (( $#tmp_files )) cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination


            Or in a more C style:



            setopt extendedglob nullglob
            txt_files=( **/*.txt~*(test|sample)*(.) )
            if [[ $#txt_files != 0 ]]
            cp -t $txt_files $txt_destination


            tmp_files=( **/*.tmp~*(test|sample)*(.) )
            if [[ $#tmp_files != 0 ]]
            cp -t $tmp_files $tmp_destination



            I didn't forget any quotes there; zsh keeps track of array element boundaries rather than just breaking on spaces. The semicolons after [[ ]] tests are also optional.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Jan 30 at 2:58

























            answered Jan 28 at 23:31









            Ed GrimmEd Grimm

            3486




            3486












            • only just starting out but i've noticed that the script begins with #!/bin/bash

              – madmiddle
              Jan 29 at 0:41











            • How would i go about writing that in Bash please ?

              – madmiddle
              Jan 29 at 0:51











            • Most of them start with #!/bin/bash. zsh may generally be ahead of bash in terms of capability, but bash is always far more popular. That said, it looks like it's pretty close to the point where I could consider using it for my shell in a pinch. It now has autocd, associative arrays, menu completion, and most of the other stuff I use. Of course, there's the learning curve, as it does all of those things differently than I'm used to.

              – Ed Grimm
              Jan 29 at 1:53












            • OK, I think I'm done futzing with doing this in bash now. And since this is a bash question, even though it wasn't tagged that way, I've put the bash answer first.

              – Ed Grimm
              Jan 29 at 2:07






            • 1





              @madmiddle If you have restrictions on the type of shell used, then mention this in the question. Currently, you are writing a bash script (which is evident from the use of shopt) but you never mention bash in the question and you have only tagged the question with shell.

              – Kusalananda
              Jan 29 at 7:40

















            • only just starting out but i've noticed that the script begins with #!/bin/bash

              – madmiddle
              Jan 29 at 0:41











            • How would i go about writing that in Bash please ?

              – madmiddle
              Jan 29 at 0:51











            • Most of them start with #!/bin/bash. zsh may generally be ahead of bash in terms of capability, but bash is always far more popular. That said, it looks like it's pretty close to the point where I could consider using it for my shell in a pinch. It now has autocd, associative arrays, menu completion, and most of the other stuff I use. Of course, there's the learning curve, as it does all of those things differently than I'm used to.

              – Ed Grimm
              Jan 29 at 1:53












            • OK, I think I'm done futzing with doing this in bash now. And since this is a bash question, even though it wasn't tagged that way, I've put the bash answer first.

              – Ed Grimm
              Jan 29 at 2:07






            • 1





              @madmiddle If you have restrictions on the type of shell used, then mention this in the question. Currently, you are writing a bash script (which is evident from the use of shopt) but you never mention bash in the question and you have only tagged the question with shell.

              – Kusalananda
              Jan 29 at 7:40
















            only just starting out but i've noticed that the script begins with #!/bin/bash

            – madmiddle
            Jan 29 at 0:41





            only just starting out but i've noticed that the script begins with #!/bin/bash

            – madmiddle
            Jan 29 at 0:41













            How would i go about writing that in Bash please ?

            – madmiddle
            Jan 29 at 0:51





            How would i go about writing that in Bash please ?

            – madmiddle
            Jan 29 at 0:51













            Most of them start with #!/bin/bash. zsh may generally be ahead of bash in terms of capability, but bash is always far more popular. That said, it looks like it's pretty close to the point where I could consider using it for my shell in a pinch. It now has autocd, associative arrays, menu completion, and most of the other stuff I use. Of course, there's the learning curve, as it does all of those things differently than I'm used to.

            – Ed Grimm
            Jan 29 at 1:53






            Most of them start with #!/bin/bash. zsh may generally be ahead of bash in terms of capability, but bash is always far more popular. That said, it looks like it's pretty close to the point where I could consider using it for my shell in a pinch. It now has autocd, associative arrays, menu completion, and most of the other stuff I use. Of course, there's the learning curve, as it does all of those things differently than I'm used to.

            – Ed Grimm
            Jan 29 at 1:53














            OK, I think I'm done futzing with doing this in bash now. And since this is a bash question, even though it wasn't tagged that way, I've put the bash answer first.

            – Ed Grimm
            Jan 29 at 2:07





            OK, I think I'm done futzing with doing this in bash now. And since this is a bash question, even though it wasn't tagged that way, I've put the bash answer first.

            – Ed Grimm
            Jan 29 at 2:07




            1




            1





            @madmiddle If you have restrictions on the type of shell used, then mention this in the question. Currently, you are writing a bash script (which is evident from the use of shopt) but you never mention bash in the question and you have only tagged the question with shell.

            – Kusalananda
            Jan 29 at 7:40





            @madmiddle If you have restrictions on the type of shell used, then mention this in the question. Currently, you are writing a bash script (which is evident from the use of shopt) but you never mention bash in the question and you have only tagged the question with shell.

            – Kusalananda
            Jan 29 at 7:40


            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?