Ensure that we don't skip any commands

[slycordinator]

fixes #1
In _execute::_process_arguments::parallel-bash()
We append each command to the cmds string, then stop and evaluate it (and run the commands) only once the job index reaches that of $NO_OF_JOBS.

But when the total number of requested jobs is not evenly divisible by $NO_OF_JOBS, after looping through all of the commands, some remain having not been run, due to the fact that $NO_OF_COMMANDS having not been reached. This happens when, for example, there are 13 commands requested and $NO_OF_COMMANDS == 10, resulting in 3 commands that never got evaluated.

And in that case, after iterating through the input arrays, $cmds will contain the previous commands that were yet to be processed.

So, this change has us run eval on $cmds in that case, so long as it's not empty.

[slycordinator]

To make it clear.
With the original script:

$ main() { echo "${1}" ;}
$ export -f main
$ printf "%b\n" {1..10} | parallel-bash -p 7 main {}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$ printf "%b\n" {1..10} | parallel-bash -p 100 main {}
$

It misses 3 of the 10 tasks in the first command.
And misses all 10 of the tasks in the second.

Because the eval call only happens when [[ ${job} -eq "${NO_OF_JOBS}" ]], so in the first one, the commands run when $job == 7, then gets reset to 0, and the remaining 3 commands get added to cmds string, but are never run since it won't reach 7.

And same idea for second command; there are 10 tasks yet it will only try to run them when $job == 100, so none of them are run because the index will never reach 100.

And with the modified one:

$ main() { echo "${1}" ;}
$ export -f main
$ printf "%b\n" {1..10} | parallel-bash -p 7 main {}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$ printf "%b\n" {1..10} | parallel-bash -p 100 main {}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$

And this has all tasks complete.
Since after looping/parsing/executing, it checks if cmds is not empty and runs the straggling/leftover tasks.

[Akianonymus]

Nice

Can you fix the formatting ? Thanks

[slycordinator]

Nice

Can you fix the formatting ? Thanks

Done.

I was in the middle of fixing that when you commented.