We Keep Coding

is there a way to clear python argparse?

Consider the following script:
import argparse
parser1 = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser1.add_argument('-a')
args1 = parser1.parse_args()
parser2 = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser2.add_argument('-b')
args2 = parser2.parse_args()
I have several questions:
Is parse_args a one-time method or is there a way to clear the
arguments before adding new ones? (e.g. something like
args1.clear() or parser1.clear())
The result of this script is unusable. Although this script accepts
the -a argument, it does not accept any value for 'a'. Nor does it
accept any -b argument. Is there some way to make any of the arguments really work?
This is my actual scenario: I have 2 scripts. Both import the same
file which has initialization code (load config files, create
loggers, etc.), lets call it init.py This init.py file also parses
the arguments only because it needs one value from it. The problem
is that I need one of the scripts to accept other arguments as well.
Since init.py does something with one argument, I cannot wait with
parse_args. How can I make it work?
Edit:
Here is the output of my script:
[prompt]# python2.7 myscript.py -a
usage: a.py [-h] [-a A]
myscript.py: error: argument -a: expected one argument
[prompt]# python2.7 myscript.py -a 1
Namespace(a='1')
usage: a.py [-h] [-b B]
myscript.py: error: unrecognized arguments: -a 1

Your scenario is quite unclear, but I guess what you're looking for is parse_known_args
Here I guessed that you called init.py from the other files, say caller1.py and caller2.py
Also suppose that init.py only parses -a argument, while the original script will parse the rest.
You can do something like this:
in init.py put this in do_things method:
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser.add_argument('-a')
parsed = parser.parse_known_args(sys.argv)
print 'From init.py: %s' % parsed['a']
In caller1.py:
init.do_things(sys.argv)
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser.add_argument('-b')
parsed = parser.parse_known_args(sys.argv)
print 'From caller1.py: %s' % parsed['b']
If you call caller1.py as follows: python caller1.py -a foo -b bar, the result will be:
From init.py: foo
From caller1.py: bar
But if your scenario is not actually like this, I would suggest to use #Michael0x2a answer, which is just to use single ArgumentParser object in caller1.py and pass the value appropriately for init.py

This doesn't really make sense, because for all intents and purposes, the parser object is stateless. There's nothing to clear, since all it does is takes in the console arguments, and returns a Namespace object (a pseudo-dict) without ever modifying anything in the process.
Therefore, you can consider parse_args() to be idempotent. You can repeatedly call it over and over, and the same output will occur. By default, it will read the arguments from sys.argv, which is where the console arguments are stored.
However, note that you can pipe in custom arguments by passing in a list to the parse_args function so that the parser will using something other then sys.argv as input.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you call python myscript.py -a 15, args1 will equal Namespace(a='15'). You can then do args1['a'] to obtain the value of 15. If you want to make the flag act as a toggle, call parser.add_argument('-a', action='store_true'). Here is a list of all available actions.
I would try and confine all the console/interface code into a single module and into a single parser. Basically, remove the code to parse the command line from init.py and the second file into an independent little section. Once you run the parser, which presents a unified interface for everything in your program, pass in the appropriate variables to functions inside init.py. This has the added advantage of keeping the UI separate and more easily interchangeable with the rest of the code.

Call python Fabric functions from within the same script

I have a single file script for operations automation (log file downloads, stop/start several containers. User is choosing what to do via command arguments) and want to have fabric functions in the same script as well as argument parsing class and possibly some other. How do I call fabric functions from within the same python script? I do not want to use "fab" as it is.
And as a side note, I'd like to have these calls parallel as well.
This is a model class that would ideally contain all necessary fabric functions:
class fabricFuncs:
def appstate(self):
env.hosts = hosts
run('sudo /home/user/XXX.sh state')
This is launcher section:
if __name__ == "__main__":
argParser().argParse()
fabricFuncs().ihsstate()
argParser sets variables globaly using command line arguments specified (just to clarify what that part does).
Which sadly results in a failure where no hosts are defined (env.hosts should contain that inside the function...or is it too late to declare them there?)
EDIT1:
I have tried launching the fabric function using this:
for h in env.hosts:
with settings(hosts_string=user + "#" + h):
fabricFuncs().ihsstate()
It kind of works. I kind of hoped though, that I will be able to paralelize the whole process using fabric module as it is (via decorators) without wraping the whole thing in threading code.
EDIT2:
I have tried this as well:
execute(fabricFuncs().ihsstate())
Which fails with:
Fatal error: Needed to prompt for the target host connection string (host: None)
Can i put a whole env.hosts variable into "settings" above without iterating over that list with a "for" statement?
EDIT3:
I have tried editing the fab function like this to see if env.hosts are set properly:
class fabricFuncs:
def appstate(self):
env.hosts = hosts
print env.hosts
run('sudo /home/user/XXX.sh state')
And it prints out correctly, but still the "run" command fails with:
Fatal error: Needed to prompt for the target host connection string (host: None)

Use the execute command:
from fabric.api import execute
execute(argParser().argParse())
execute(fabricFuncs().ihsstate())

if you run the script without fab command env.host will set to None.
so if you want to use 'execute' you have to pass also 'hosts' parameter.
try this:
from fabric.api import execute, run
if __name__ == "__main__":
hosts = ["host1", "host2"]
execute(run('sudo /home/user/XXX.sh state'), hosts=hosts)

Python subprocess module with pre-populated environment

Question can be related to Use python subprocess module like a command line simulator
I have written some infrastructure code called my_shell to which you can pass shell commands of my application that looks like this
class ApplicationTestShell(object):
def __init__(self):
'''
Constructor
'''
self.play_ground_dir = "/var/tmp/MyAppDir"
ensure_dir_exists_and_empty(self.play_ground_dir)
def execute_command(self, command, on_success = None, on_failure = None):
p = create_shell_process(self, self.play_ground_dir)
sout, serr = p.communicate(input = command)
if p.returncode == 0:
on_success(sout)
else:
on_failure(serr)
def create_shell_process(self, cwd):
return Popen("/bin/bash", env= {WHAT DO I DO HERE?},cwd = test_dir, stdout=PIPE, stderr=PIPE, stdin=PIPE)
The interesting bit to me here is the env parameter. Python expects like a 'map' datastructure of all environment variable. My application requires several variables exported and set. The script for setting and exporting is generated by running say '/bin/appload myapp' (Assume appload is always available on the path). What I do currently
is when I call p.communicate I do the following
p.communicate(input = "eval `/bin/appload myapp`;" + command)
So basically before running the command I call the infrastructure setup.
Is there any way to do this in a better fashion in Python. I somehow want to push the eval /bin/appload part to the env parameter on the Popen class OR as part of the shell creation process.
What are the problems with my current implementation? (I feel it is hacky but I may be wrong)

It depends on how /bin/appload myapp works. If it only guarantees that it will output bash syntax, then parsing that output in Python in order to construct the environment object there is almost certainly more trouble than it's worth (you might need to support parameter and variable expansion, subshells, process substitution, etc, etc). On the other hand, if you are sure that /bin/appload myapp will only ever output lines of the form "VARIABLENAME=someword", then that's pretty trivial to parse in Python and you could move it into your Python code if you like.
There are an awful lot of different directions you could go with these requirements; you could capture the output of appload myapp into a tempfile and set the subprocess's $BASH_ENV to that filename; that would cause the shell to source your environment setup before running your command in a way that some might consider cleaner. You could give your command (with the eval-ing prefix) as the first argument to Popen and pass shell=True, and let Popen do the bash invocation on its own (setting $SHELL explicitly to bash if necessary). You could use bash's -c option to specify the code to run on the command line rather than via stdin. You could have a multi-tiered approach by invoking a shell from Python which eval's the appload myapp environment and then exec's another shell underneath it, so that the first doesn't show up in ps listings and the command given to create_shell_process has the shell all to itself (although that shouldn't really matter). You could do a lot of things, depending on what your concerns are with respect to how the shell is invoked, how it looks in ps listings, whether you want your command to still be run if the appload myapp output produces an error when eval'd, etc. But for a general solution, I think what you have is perfectly fine.
I don't see any real problems with the implementation, besides cosmetic things or minor things that probably only came from copying and pasting the code: create_shell_process doesn't use its cwd parameter, and the on_success and on_failure parameters look like they're optional but the defaults will break things (you can't call None).

Python CLI program unit testing

I am working on a python Command-Line-Interface program, and I find it boring when doing testings, for example, here is the help information of the program:
usage: pyconv [-h] [-f ENCODING] [-t ENCODING] [-o file_path] file_path
Convert text file from one encoding to another.
positional arguments:
file_path
optional arguments:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
-f ENCODING, --from ENCODING
Encoding of source file
-t ENCODING, --to ENCODING
Encoding you want
-o file_path, --output file_path
Output file path
When I made changes on the program and want to test something, I must open a terminal,
type the command(with options and arguments), type enter, and see if any error occurs
while running. If error really occurs, I must go back to the editor and check the code
from top to end, guessing where the bug positions, make small changes, write print lines,
return to the terminal, run command again...
Recursively.
So my question is, what is the best way to do testing with CLI program, can it be as easy
as unit testing with normal python scripts?

I think it's perfectly fine to test functionally on a whole-program level. It's still possible to test one aspect/option per test. This way you can be sure that the program really works as a whole. Writing unit-tests usually means that you get to execute your tests quicker and that failures are usually easier to interpret/understand. But unit-tests are typically more tied to the program structure, requiring more refactoring effort when you internally change things.
Anyway, using py.test, here is a little example for testing a latin1 to utf8 conversion for pyconv::
# content of test_pyconv.py
import pytest
# we reuse a bit of pytest's own testing machinery, this should eventually come
# from a separatedly installable pytest-cli plugin.
pytest_plugins = ["pytester"]
#pytest.fixture
def run(testdir):
def do_run(*args):
args = ["pyconv"] + list(args)
return testdir._run(*args)
return do_run
def test_pyconv_latin1_to_utf8(tmpdir, run):
input = tmpdir.join("example.txt")
content = unicode("\xc3\xa4\xc3\xb6", "latin1")
with input.open("wb") as f:
f.write(content.encode("latin1"))
output = tmpdir.join("example.txt.utf8")
result = run("-flatin1", "-tutf8", input, "-o", output)
assert result.ret == 0
with output.open("rb") as f:
newcontent = f.read()
assert content.encode("utf8") == newcontent
After installing pytest ("pip install pytest") you can run it like this::
$ py.test test_pyconv.py
=========================== test session starts ============================
platform linux2 -- Python 2.7.3 -- pytest-2.4.5dev1
collected 1 items
test_pyconv.py .
========================= 1 passed in 0.40 seconds =========================
The example reuses some internal machinery of pytest's own testing by leveraging pytest's fixture mechanism, see http://pytest.org/latest/fixture.html. If you forget about the details for a moment, you can just work from the fact that "run" and "tmpdir" are provided for helping you to prepare and run tests. If you want to play, you can try to insert a failing assert-statement or simply "assert 0" and then look at the traceback or issue "py.test --pdb" to enter a python prompt.

Start from the user interface with functional tests and work down towards unit tests. It can feel difficult, especially when you use the argparse module or the click package, which take control of the application entry point.
The cli-test-helpers Python package has examples and helper functions (context managers) for a holistic approach on writing tests for your CLI. It's a simple idea, and one that works perfectly with TDD:
Start with functional tests (to ensure your user interface definition) and
Work towards unit tests (to ensure your implementation contracts)
Functional tests
NOTE: I assume you develop code that is deployed with a setup.py file or is run as a module (-m).
Is the entrypoint script installed? (tests the configuration in your setup.py)
Can this package be run as a Python module? (i.e. without having to be installed)
Is command XYZ available? etc. Cover your entire CLI usage here!
Those tests are simplistic: They run the shell command you would enter in the terminal, e.g.
def test_entrypoint():
exit_status = os.system('foobar --help')
assert exit_status == 0
Note the trick to use a non-destructive operation (e.g. --help or --version) as we can't mock anything with this approach.
Towards unit tests
To test single aspects inside the application you will need to mimic things like command line arguments and maybe environment variables. You will also need to catch the exiting of your script to avoid the tests to fail for SystemExit exceptions.
Example with ArgvContext to mimic command line arguments:
#patch('foobar.command.baz')
def test_cli_command(mock_command):
"""Is the correct code called when invoked via the CLI?"""
with ArgvContext('foobar', 'baz'), pytest.raises(SystemExit):
foobar.cli.main()
assert mock_command.called
Note that we mock the function that we want our CLI framework (click in this example) to call, and that we catch SystemExit that the framework naturally raises. The context managers are provided by cli-test-helpers and pytest.
Unit tests
The rest is business as usual. With the above two strategies we've overcome the control a CLI framework may have taken away from us. The rest is usual unit testing. TDD-style hopefully.
Disclosure: I am the author of the cli-test-helpers Python package.

So my question is, what is the best way to do testing with CLI program, can it be as easy as unit testing with normal python scripts?
The only difference is that when you run Python module as a script, its __name__ attribute is set to '__main__'. So generally, if you intend to run your script from command line it should have following form:
import sys
# function and class definitions, etc.
# ...
def foo(arg):
pass
def main():
"""Entry point to the script"""
# Do parsing of command line arguments and other stuff here. And then
# make calls to whatever functions and classes that are defined in your
# module. For example:
foo(sys.argv[1])
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Now there is no difference, how you would use it: as a script or as a module. So inside your unit-testing code you can just import foo function, call it and make any assertions you want.

Maybe too little too late,
but you can always use
import os.system
result = os.system(<'Insert your command with options here'>
assert(0 == result)
In that way, you can run your program as if it was from command line, and evaluate the exit code.
(Update after I studied pytest)
You can also use capsys.
(from running pytest --fixtures)
capsys
Enable text capturing of writes to sys.stdout and sys.stderr.
The captured output is made available via ``capsys.readouterr()`` method
calls, which return a ``(out, err)`` namedtuple.
``out`` and ``err`` will be ``text`` objects.

This isn't for Python specifically, but what I do to test command-line scripts is to run them with various predetermined inputs and options and store the correct output in a file. Then, to test them when I make changes, I simply run the new script and pipe the output into diff correct_output -. If the files are the same, it outputs nothing. If they're different, it shows you where. This will only work if you are on Linux or OS X; on Windows, you will have to get MSYS.
Example:
python mycliprogram --someoption "some input" | diff correct_output -
To make it even easier, you can add all these test runs to your 'make test' Makefile target, which I assume you already have. ;)
If you are running many of these at once, you could make it a little more obvious where each one ends by adding a fail tag:
python mycliprogram --someoption "some input" | diff correct_output - || tput setaf 1 && echo "FAILED"

The short answer is yes, you can use unit tests, and should. If your code is well structured, it should be quite easy to test each component separately, and if you need to to can always mock sys.argv to simulate running it with different arguments.

pytest-console-scripts is a Pytest plugin for testing python scripts installed via console_scripts entry point of setup.py.

For Python 3.5+, you can use the simpler subprocess.run to call your CLI command from your test.
Using pytest:
import subprocess
def test_command__works_properly():
try:
result = subprocess.run(['command', '--argument', 'value'], check=True, capture_output=True, text=True)
except subprocess.CalledProcessError as error:
print(error.stdout)
print(error.stderr)
raise error
The output can be accessed via result.stdout, result.stderr, and result.returncode if needed.
The check parameter causes an exception to be raised if an error occurs. Note Python 3.7+ is required for the capture_output and text parameters, which simplify capturing and reading stdout/stderr.

Given that you are explicitly asking about testing for a command line application, I believe that you are aware of unit-testing tools in python and that you are actually looking for a tool to automate end-to-end tests of a command line tool. There are a couple of tools out there that are specifically designed for that. If you are looking for something that's pip-installable, I would recommend cram. It integrates well with the rest of the python environment (e.g. through a pytest extension) and it's quite easy to use:
Simply write the commands you want to run prepended with $ and the expected output prepended with . For example, the following would be a valid cram test:
$ echo Hello
Hello
By having four spaces in front of expected output and two in front of the test, you can actually use these tests to also write documentation. More on that on the website.

You can use standard unittest module:
# python -m unittest <test module>
or use nose as a testing framework. Just write classic unittest files in separate directory and run:
# nosetests <test modules directory>
Writing unittests is easy. Just follow online manual for unittesting

I would not test the program as a whole this is not a good test strategy and may not actually catch the actual spot of the error. The CLI interface is just front end to an API. You test the API via your unit tests and then when you make a change to a specific part you have a test case to exercise that change.
So, restructure your application so that you test the API and not the application it self. But, you can have a functional test that actually does run the full application and checks that the output is correct.
In short, yes testing the code is the same as testing any other code, but you must test the individual parts rather than their combination as a whole to ensure that your changes do not break everything.

command line arg parsing through introspection

I'm developing a management script that does a fairly large amount of work via a plethora of command-line options. The first few iterations of the script have used optparse to collect user input and then just run down the page, testing the value of each option in the appropriate order, and doing the action if necessary. This has resulted in a jungle of code that's really hard to read and maintain.
I'm looking for something better.
My hope is to have a system where I can write functions in more or less normal python fashion, and then when the script is run, have options (and help text) generated from my functions, parsed, and executed in the appropriate order. Additionally, I'd REALLY like to be able to build django-style sub-command interfaces, where myscript.py install works completely separately from myscript.py remove (separate options, help, etc.)
I've found simon willison's optfunc and it does a lot of this, but seems to just miss the mark — I want to write each OPTION as a function, rather than try to compress the whole option set into a huge string of options.
I imagine an architecture involving a set of classes for major functions, and each defined method of the class corresponding to a particular option in the command line. This structure provides the advantage of having each option reside near the functional code it modifies, easing maintenance. The thing I don't know quite how to deal with is the ordering of the commands, since the ordering of class methods is not deterministic.
Before I go reinventing the wheel: Are there any other existing bits of code that behave similarly? Other things that would be easy to modify? Asking the question has clarified my own thinking on what would be nice, but feedback on why this is a terrible idea, or how it should work would be welcome.

Don't waste time on "introspection".
Each "Command" or "Option" is an object with two sets of method functions or attributes.
Provide setup information to optparse.
Actually do the work.
Here's the superclass for all commands
class Command( object ):
name= "name"
def setup_opts( self, parser ):
"""Add any options to the parser that this command needs."""
pass
def execute( self, context, options, args ):
"""Execute the command in some application context with some options and args."""
raise NotImplemented
You create sublcasses for Install and Remove and every other command you need.
Your overall application looks something like this.
commands = [
Install(),
Remove(),
]
def main():
parser= optparse.OptionParser()
for c in commands:
c.setup_opts( parser )
options, args = parser.parse()
command= None
for c in commands:
if c.name.startswith(args[0].lower()):
command= c
break
if command:
status= command.execute( context, options, args[1:] )
else:
logger.error( "Command %r is unknown", args[0] )
status= 2
sys.exit( status )

The WSGI library werkzeug provides Management Script Utilities which may do what you want, or at least give you a hint how to do the introspection yourself.
from werkzeug import script
# actions go here
def action_test():
"sample with no args"
pass
def action_foo(name=2, value="test"):
"do some foo"
pass
if __name__ == '__main__':
script.run()
Which will generate the following help message:
$ python /tmp/test.py --help
usage: test.py <action> [<options>]
test.py --help
actions:
foo:
do some foo
--name integer 2
--value string test
test:
sample with no args
An action is a function in the same module starting with "action_" which takes a number of arguments where every argument has a default. The type of the default value specifies the type of the argument.
Arguments can then be passed by position or using --name=value from the shell.