In C#, when an object implements IDisposable, using should be used to guarantee that resources will be cleaned if an exception is thrown. For instance, instead of:
var connection = new SqlConnection(...);
...
connection.Close();
one needs to write:
using (var connection = new SqlConnection(...))
{
...
}
Therefore, just by looking at the signature of the class, I know exactly whether or not I should initialize the object inside a using.
In Python 3, a similar construct is with. Similarly to C#, it ensures that the resources will be cleaned up automatically when exiting the with context, even if a error is raised.
However, I'm not sure how should I determine whether with should be used or not for a specific class. For instance, an example from psycopg doesn't use with, which may mean that:
I shouldn't either, or:
The example is written for Python 2, or:
The authors of the documentation were unaware of with syntax, or:
The authors decided not to handle exceptional cases for the sake of simplicity.
In general, how should I determine whether with should be used when initializing an instance of a specific class (assuming that documentation says nothing on the subject, and that I have access to source code)?
Regarding when you should use it:
No one forces you to use the with statement, it's just syntactic sugar that's there to make your life easier. If you use it or not is totally up to you but, it is generally recommended to do so. (We're forgetful and with ... looks ways better than explicit initialize resource/finalize recourse calls).
When you can use it:
When you can use it boils down to examining if it defines the context manager protocol. This could be as simple as trying to use with and seeing that it fails :-)
If you dynamically need to check if an object is a context manager, you have two options.
First, wait for the stable release of Python 3.6 which defines an ABC for context managers, ContextManager, which can be used in issubclass/isinstance checks:
>>> from typing import ContextManager
>>> class foo:
... def __enter__(self): pass
... def __exit__(self): pass
...
>>> isinstance(foo(), ContextManager)
True
>>> class foo2: pass
...
>>> isinstance(foo2(), ContextManager)
False
Or, create your own little function to check for it:
def iscontext(inst):
cls = type(inst)
return (any("__enter__" in vars(a) for a in cls.__mro__) and
any("__exit__" in vars(a) for a in cls.__mro__))
As a final note, the with statement is present in Python 2 and in 3, the use case you saw probably just wasn't aware of it :-).
with is for use with context managers.
At the code level, a context manager must define two methods:
__enter__(self)
__exit__(self, type, value, traceback).
Be aware that there are class decorators which can turn otherwise simple classes/functions into context managers - see contextlib for some examples
You should use with whenever you need to perform some similar action before and after executing the statement. For example:
Want to execute SQL query? You need to open and close the connections safely.Use with.
Want to perform some action on file? You have to open and close the file safely. Use with
Want to store some data in temporary file to perform some task? You need to create the directory, and clean it up once you are done. Use with, and so on. . .
Everything you want to perform before the query execution, add it to the __enter__() method. And the action to be performed after, add it to the __exit__() method.
One of the nice thing about with is, __exit__ is executed even if the code within with raises any Exception
Related
I would like to handle a NameError exception by injecting the desired missing variable into the frame and then continue the execution from last attempted instruction.
The following pseudo-code should illustrate my needs.
def function():
return missing_var
try:
print function()
except NameError:
frame = inspect.trace()[-1][0]
# inject missing variable
frame.f_globals["missing_var"] = ...
# continue frame execution from last attempted instruction
exec frame.f_code from frame.f_lasti
Read the whole unittest on repl.it
Notes
As pointed out by ivan_pozdeev in his answer, this is known as resumption.
After more research, I found Veedrac's answer to the question Resuming program at line number in the context before an exception using a custom sys.excepthook posted by lc2817 very interesting. It relies on Richie Hindle's work.
Background
The code runs in a slave process, which is controlled by a parent. Tasks (functions really) are written in the parent and latter passed to the slave using dill. I expect some tasks (running in the slave process) to try to access variables from outer scopes in the parent and I'd like the slave to request those variables to the parent on the fly.
p.s.: I don't expect this magic to run in a production environment.
On the contrary to what various commenters are saying, "resume-on-error" exception handling is possible in Python. The library fuckit.py implements said strategy. It steamrollers errors by rewriting the source code of your module at import time, inserting try...except blocks around every statement and swallowing all exceptions. So perhaps you could try a similar sort of tactic?
It goes without saying: that library is intended as a joke. Don't ever use it in production code.
You mentioned that your use case is to trap references to missing names. Have you thought about using metaprogramming to run your code in the context of a "smart" namespace such as a defaultdict? (This is perhaps only marginally less of a bad idea than fuckit.py.)
from collections import defaultdict
class NoMissingNamesMeta(type):
#classmethod
def __prepare__(meta, name, bases):
return defaultdict(lambda: "foo")
class MyClass(metaclass=NoMissingNamesMeta):
x = y + "bar" # y doesn't exist
>>> MyClass.x
'foobar'
NoMissingNamesMeta is a metaclass - a language construct for customising the behaviour of the class statement. Here we're using the __prepare__ method to customise the dictionary which will be used as the class's namespace during creation of the class. Thus, because we're using a defaultdict instead of a regular dictionary, a class whose metaclass is NoMissingNamesMeta will never get a NameError. Any names referred to during the creation of the class will be auto-initialised to "foo".
This approach is similar to #AndréFratelli's idea of manually requesting the lazily-initialised data from a Scope object. In production I'd do that, not this. The metaclass version requires less typing to write the client code, but at the expense of a lot more magic. (Imagine yourself debugging this code in two years, trying to understand why non-existent variables are dynamically being brought into scope!)
The "resumption" exception handling technique has proven to be problematic, that's why it's missing from C++ and later languages.
Your best bet is to use a while loop to not resume where the exception was thrown but rather repeat from a predetermined place:
while True:
try:
do_something()
except NameError as e:
handle_error()
else:
break
You really can't unwind the stack after an exception is thrown, so you'd have to deal with the issue before hand. If your requirement is to generate these variables on the fly (which wouldn't be recommended, but you seem to understand that), then you'd have to actually request them. You can implement a mechanism for that (such as having a global custom Scope class instance and overriding __getitem__, or using something like the __dir__ function), but not as you are asking for it.
I really like the syntax "with open('in_file'') as f".
I want to use that syntax for my own resources which must be opened and closed.
However, I do not understand how to change my open() method to enable the 'with' syntax.
I can (and do) use the contextlib.closing() approach but it becomes a bit bulky after repeated use.
So, I will ask my question below in relation to shelve.open().
I am not proposing a change to the shelve module but instead am using it because the source code is readily available to all of you.
There is nothing special about shelve.open() vs. other standard library resources that require closing: socket.socket(), sqlite3.connect(), urllib2.urlopen(), etc.
import contextlib, inspect, shelve, sys
#print(inspect.getsource(open)) # can not see how it was done here :-(
print('-' * 40)
# Given that we can view the source for the shelve module:
print(inspect.getsource(shelve))
print('-' * 40)
# Given that we can view the docs for the shelve module:
print(shelve.__doc__)
#print('-' * 40)
# Given that the desired syntax is Pythonic but is not supported:
#with shelve.open('test_shelve') as my_shelve:
# my_shelve['fact_number_1'] = "There's a dead fish on the landing."
# Given that the required syntax is convoluted and
# takes programmer attention away from the task at hand:
with contextlib.closing(shelve.open('test_shelve')) as my_shelve:
my_shelve['fact_number_2'] = "There's another dead fish on the landing."
# Q: What changes would need to made to shelve.open() to allow the
# 'with shelve.open(x) as y' syntax?
I am not really interested in an extra wrapper with a different name. Using contextlib.closing() is easier, safer, and more intuitive than that. What I am really interested in is creating a single open() method that can be called either with or without 'with'.
So, to successfully answer this question, you need to take the source code for the shelve module and show what changes would need to be made to shelve.open() to have a single method that can be used either with or without 'with' (like the builtin open() or the Python3 urllib.urlopen()).
The biggest problem here is that if you do
shelf = the_function_you_want()
the function you want has to return the shelf, but if you do
with the_function_you_want() as shelf:
the function you want has to return a context manager. That means you need to return a shelf that is also a context manager, which in turn means you either need to make a shelf subclass or monkey-patch Shelf. It's probably better to make a subclass:
class ContextManagerShelf(shelve.DbfilenameShelf):
def __enter__(self):
return self
def __exit__(self, *exc_info):
self.close()
Then you can use ContextManagerShelf as a context manager or not. The signature is the same as shelve.open. If you want, you can also make an open function to go with it.
(Edited for even more clarity)
I'm reading the Python book (Python Essential Reference by Beazley) and he says:
The with statement allows a series of statements to execute inside a
runtime context that is controlled by an object that serves as a context manager.
Here is an example:
with open("debuglog","a") as f:
f.write("Debugging\n")
statements
f.write("Done\n")
He goes on to say:
The with obj statement accepts an optional as var specifier. If given, the value
returned by obj._ enter _() is placed into var. It is important to emphasize
that obj is not necessarily the value assigned to var.
I understand the mechanics of what a 'with' keyword does: a file-object is returned by open and that object is accessible via f within the body of the block. I also understand that enter() and eventually exit() will be called.
But what exactly is a run-time context? A few low level details would be nice - or, an example in C. Could someone clarify what exactly a "context" is and how it might relate to other languages (C, C++). My understanding of a context was the environment eg: a Bash shell executes ls in the context of all the (env displayed) shell variables.
With the with keyword - yes f is accessible to the body of the block but isn't that just scoping? eg: for x in y: here x is not scoped within the block and retains it's value outside the block - is this what Beazley means when he talks about 'runtime context', that f is scoped only within the block and looses all significance outside the with-block?? Why does he say that the statements "execute inside a runtime context"??? Is this like an "eval"??
I understand that open returns an object that is "not ... assigned to var"??
Why isn't it assigned to var? What does Beazley mean by making a statement like that?
The with statement was introduced in PEP 343. This PEP also introduced a new term, "context manager", and defined what that term means.
Briefly, a "context manager" is an object that has special method functions .__enter__() and .__exit__(). The with statement guarantees that the .__enter__() method will be called to set up the block of code indented under the with statement, and also guarantees that the .__exit__() method function will be called at the time of exit from the block of code (no matter how the block is exited; for example, if the code raises an exception, .__exit__() will still be called).
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0343/
http://docs.python.org/2/reference/datamodel.html?highlight=context%20manager#with-statement-context-managers
The with statement is now the preferred way to handle any task that has a well-defined setup and teardown. Working with a file, for example:
with open(file_name) as f:
# do something with file
You know the file will be properly closed when you are done.
Another great example is a resource lock:
with acquire_lock(my_lock):
# do something
You know the code won't run until you get the lock, and as soon as the code is done the lock will be released. I don't often do multithreaded coding in Python, but when I did, this statement made sure that the lock was always released, even in the face of an exception.
P.S. I did a Google search online for examples of context managers and I found this nifty one: a context manager that executes a Python block in a specific directory.
http://ralsina.me/weblog/posts/BB963.html
EDIT:
The runtime context is the environment that is set up by the call to .__enter__() and torn down by the call to .__exit__(). In my example of acquiring a lock, the block of code runs in the context of having a lock available. In the example of reading a file, the block of code runs in the context of the file being open.
There isn't any secret magic inside Python for this. There is no special scoping, no internal stack, and nothing special in the parser. You simply write two method functions, .__enter__() and .__exit__() and Python calls them at specific points for your with statement.
Look again at this section from the PEP:
Remember, PEP 310 proposes roughly this syntax (the "VAR =" part is optional):
with VAR = EXPR:
BLOCK
which roughly translates into this:
VAR = EXPR
VAR.__enter__()
try:
BLOCK
finally:
VAR.__exit__()
In both examples, BLOCK is a block of code that runs in a specific runtime context that is set up by the call to VAR.__enter__() and torn down by VAR.__exit__().
There are two main benefits to the with statement and the way it is all set up.
The more concrete benefit is that it's "syntactic sugar". I would much rather write a two-line with statement than a six-line sequence of statements; it's easier two write the shorter one, it looks nicer and is easier to understand, and it is easier to get right. Six lines versus two means more chances to screw things up. (And before the with statement, I was usually sloppy about wrapping file I/O in a try block; I only did it sometimes. Now I always use with and always get the exception handling.)
The more abstract benefit is that this gives us a new way to think about designing our programs. Raymond Hettinger, in a talk at PyCon 2013, put it this way: when we are writing programs we look for common parts that we can factor out into functions. If we have code like this:
A
B
C
D
E
F
B
C
D
G
we can easily make a function:
def BCD():
B
C
D
A
BCD()
E
F
BCD()
G
But we have never had a really clean way to do this with setup/teardown. When we have a lot of code like this:
A
BCD()
E
A
XYZ()
E
A
PDQ()
E
Now we can define a context manager and rewrite the above:
with contextA:
BCD()
with contextA:
XYZ()
with contextA:
PDQ()
So now we can think about our programs and look for setup/teardown that can be abstracted into a "context manager". Raymond Hettinger showed several new "context manager" recipes he had invented (and I'm racking my brain trying to remember an example or two for you).
EDIT: Okay, I just remembered one. Raymond Hettinger showed a recipe, that will be built in to Python 3.4, for using a with statement to ignore an exception within a block. See it here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/15566001/166949
P.S. I've done my best to give the sense of what he was saying... if I have made any mistake or misstated anything, it's on me and not on him. (And he posts on StackOverflow sometimes so he might just see this and correct me if I've messed anything up.)
EDIT: You've updated the question with more text. I'll answer it specifically as well.
is this what Beazley means when he talks about 'runtime context', that f is scoped only within the block and looses all significance outside the with-block?? Why does he say that the statements "execute inside a runtime context"??? Is this like an "eval"??
Actually, f is not scoped only within the block. When you bind a name using the as keyword in a with statement, the name remains bound after the block.
The "runtime context" is an informal concept and it means "the state set up by the .__enter__() method function call and torn down by the .__exit__() method function call." Again, I think the best example is the one about getting a lock before the code runs. The block of code runs in the "context" of having the lock.
I understand that open returns an object that is "not ... assigned to var"?? Why isn't it assigned to var? What does Beazley mean by making a statement like that?
Okay, suppose we have an object, let's call it k. k implements a "context manager", which means that it has method functions k.__enter__() and k.__exit__(). Now we do this:
with k as x:
# do something
What David Beazley wants you to know is that x will not necessarily be bound to k. x will be bound to whatever k.__enter__() returns. k.__enter__() is free to return a reference to k itself, but is also free to return something else. In this case:
with open(some_file) as f:
# do something
The call to open() returns an open file object, which works as a context manager, and its .__enter__() method function really does just return a reference to itself.
I think most context managers return a reference to self. Since it's an object it can have any number of member variables, so it can return any number of values in a convenient way. But it isn't required.
For example, there could be a context manager that starts a daemon running in the .__enter__() function, and returns the process ID number of the daemon from the .__enter__() function. Then the .__exit__() function would shut down the daemon. Usage:
with start_daemon("parrot") as pid:
print("Parrot daemon running as PID {}".format(pid))
daemon = lookup_daemon_by_pid(pid)
daemon.send_message("test")
But you could just as well return the context manager object itself with any values you need tucked inside:
with start_daemon("parrot") as daemon:
print("Parrot daemon running as PID {}".format(daemon.pid))
daemon.send_message("test")
If we need the PID of the daemon, we can just put it in a .pid member of the object. And later if we need something else we can just tuck that in there as well.
The with context takes care that on entry, the __enter__ method is called and the given var is set to whatever __enter__ returns.
In most cases, that is the object which is worked on previously - in the file case, it is - but e.g. on a database, not the connection object, but a cursor object is returned.
The file example can be extended like this:
f1 = open("debuglog","a")
with f1 as f2:
print f1 is f2
which will print True as here, the file object is returned by __enter__. (From its point of view, self.)
A database works like
d = connect(...)
with d as c:
print d is c # False
print d, c
Here, d and c are completely different: d is the connection to the database, c is a cursor used for one transaction.
The with clause is terminated by a call to __exit__() which is given the state of execution of the clause - either success or failure. In this case, the __exit__() method can act appropriately.
In the file example, the file is closed no matter if there was an error or not.
In the database example, normally the transaction is committed on success and rolled back on failure.
The context manager is for easy initialisation and cleanup of things like exactly these - files, databases etc.
There is no direct correspondence in C or C++ that I am aware of.
C knows no concept of exception, so none can be caught in a __exit__(). C++ knows exceptions, and there seems to be ways to do soo (look below at the comments).
I am trying to compare two modules/classes/method and to find out if the class/method has have changed. We allow users to change classes/methods, and after processing, we make those changes persistent, without overwriting the older classes/methods. However, before we commit the new classes, we need to establish if the code has changed and also if the functionally of the methods has changed e.g output differ and performance also defer on the same input data. I am ok with performance change, but my problem is changes in code and how to log - what has changed. i wrote something like below
class TestIfClassHasChanged(unittest.TestCase):
def setUp(self):
self.old = old_class()
self.new = new_class()
def test_if_code_has_changed(self):
# simple case for one method
old_codeobject = self.old.area.func_code.co_code
new_codeobject = self.new.area.func_code.co_code
self.assertEqual(old_codeobject, new_codeobject)
where area() is a method in both classes.. However, if I have many methods, what i see here is looping over all methods. Possible to do this at class or module level?
Secondly if I find that the code objects are not equal, I would like to log the changes. I used inspect.getsource(self.old.area) and inspect.getsource(self.new.area) compared the two to get the difference, could there be a better way of doing this?
You should be using a version control program to help manage development. This is one of the specific d=features you get from vc program is the ability to track changes. You can do diffs between current source code and previous check-ins to test if there were any changes.
if i have many methods, what i see
here is looping over all methods.
Possible to do this at class or module
level?
i will not ask why you want to do such thing ? but yes you can here is an example
import inspect
import collections
# Here i will loop over all the function in a module
module = __import__('inspect') # this is fun !!!
# Get all function in the module.
list_functions = inspect.getmembers(module, inspect.isfunction)
# Get classes and methods correspond .
list_class = inspect.getmembers(module, inspect.isclass)
class_method = collections.defaultdict(list)
for class_name, class_obj in list_class:
for method in inspect.getmembers(class_obj, inspect.ismethod):
class_method[class_name].append(method)
I have to open a file-like object in python (it's a serial connection through /dev/) and then close it. This is done several times in several methods of my class. How I WAS doing it was opening the file in the constructor, and then closing it in the destructor. I'm getting weird errors though and I think it has to do with the garbage collector and such, I'm still not used to not knowing exactly when my objects are being deleted =\
The reason I was doing this is because I have to use tcsetattr with a bunch of parameters each time I open it and it gets annoying doing all that all over the place. So I want to implement an inner class to handle all that so I can use it doing
with Meter('/dev/ttyS2') as m:
I was looking online and I couldn't find a really good answer on how the with syntax is implemented. I saw that it uses the __enter__(self) and __exit(self)__ methods. But is all I have to do implement those methods and I can use the with syntax? Or is there more to it?
Is there either an example on how to do this or some documentation on how it's implemented on file objects already that I can look at?
Those methods are pretty much all you need for making the object work with with statement.
In __enter__ you have to return the file object after opening it and setting it up.
In __exit__ you have to close the file object. The code for writing to it will be in the with statement body.
class Meter():
def __init__(self, dev):
self.dev = dev
def __enter__(self):
#ttysetattr etc goes here before opening and returning the file object
self.fd = open(self.dev, MODE)
return self
def __exit__(self, type, value, traceback):
#Exception handling here
close(self.fd)
meter = Meter('dev/tty0')
with meter as m:
#here you work with the file object.
m.fd.read()
Easiest may be to use standard Python library module contextlib:
import contextlib
#contextlib.contextmanager
def themeter(name):
theobj = Meter(name)
try:
yield theobj
finally:
theobj.close() # or whatever you need to do at exit
# usage
with themeter('/dev/ttyS2') as m:
# do what you need with m
m.read()
This doesn't make Meter itself a context manager (and therefore is non-invasive to that class), but rather "decorates" it (not in the sense of Python's "decorator syntax", but rather almost, but not quite, in the sense of the decorator design pattern;-) with a factory function themeter which is a context manager (which the contextlib.contextmanager decorator builds from the "single-yield" generator function you write) -- this makes it so much easier to separate the entering and exiting condition, avoids nesting, &c.
The first Google hit (for me) explains it simply enough:
http://effbot.org/zone/python-with-statement.htm
and the PEP explains it more precisely (but also more verbosely):
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0343/