Converting from four command executions to one

[dominguesgm]

To avoid possible inconsistencies in the results which can appear from processes being started/killed while the four ps executions are done, wouldn't it be preferable to get all the data from a single ps and process it all at once?

In fact I think that may be why the build of the pull request #13 is breaking. On of the ps processes is identifying another one of the ps executions. It may have become more frequent in that pull request due to the fact that it implements a fifth ps execution.

---

IssueHunt Summary

[
<
i
m
g

s
r
c

'
h
t
t
p
s
:
/
/
a
v
a
t
a
r
s
3
.
g
i
t
h
u
b
u
s
e
r
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
.
c
o
m
/
u
/
1
7
6
2
1
4
?
v

4
'

a
l
t

'
s
t
r
o
n
c
i
u
m
'

w
i
d
t
h

2
4

h
e
i
g
h
t

2
4

s
t
r
o
n
c
i
u
m
]
(
h
t
t
p
s
:
/
/
i
s
s
u
e
h
u
n
t
.
i
o
/
u
/
s
t
r
o
n
c
i
u
m
)

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

r
e
w
a
r
d
e
d
.

Backers (Total: $60.00)

• issuehunt ($60.00)

Submitted pull Requests

• #30 fix #14

---

Tips

• Checkout the Issuehunt explorer to discover more funded issues.
• Need some help from other developers? Add your repositories on IssueHunt to raise funds.

---

IssueHunt has been backed by the following sponsors. Become a sponsor

[sindresorhus]

Yes, it would definitely be preferable, but there's a reason I'm doing it like this. See: 74ee7b8

Happy to consider other solutions.

[dominguesgm]

I see, now that I've tried it in my console even when I try to get the "comm" parameter alone the output is being truncated, no idea why because I think it shouldn't.

[IssueHuntBot]

@IssueHunt has funded $60.00 to this issue. See it on IssueHunt

[stroncium]

It actually should. ps is designed to give out user-friendly description, so it got limits on width of each column. Those can be configured(though I suppose some older versions of ps might ignore this configuration, but due to a combination of various limits inside ps source code there is no possible configuration which would result in guaranteed printing of all the data for every possible process.

One way to go about it is to just ditch ps and read the data directly in linux-like OSes, but in OS X there is no proc, so it requires using syscalls which isn't possible without binary modules as far as I know.

[stroncium]

#30 is not expected to always work(but so is ps, and ps-list usage of ps), but should work in every case ps-list worked before and more, on all common setups.
(Though looking at ps source codes it's fairly easy to modify linux kernel to break ps, also some modern kernels allow thing which should break ps with properly crafted processes alone. Plus, current buffer allows for only 10MiB of data per ps run, while modern distros allow up to 2MiB of data per process, and most ps versions I checked allow more than 100KiB per process.)

[issuehunt-oss]

@sindresorhus has rewarded $54.00 to @stroncium. See it on IssueHunt

• 💰 Total deposit: $60.00
• 🎉 Repository reward(0%): $0.00
• 🔧 Service fee(10%): $6.00