I have a Python program, which, under certain conditions, should prompt the user for a filename. However, there is a default filename which I want to provide, which the user can edit if they wish. This means typically that they need to hit the backspace key to delete the current filename and replace it with the one they prefer.
To do this, I've adapted this answer for Python 3, into:
def rlinput(prompt, prefill=''):
readline.set_startup_hook(lambda: readline.insert_text(prefill))
try:
return input(prompt)
finally:
readline.set_startup_hook()
new_filename = rlinput("What filename do you want?", "foo.txt")
This works as expected when the program is run interactively as intended - after backspacing and entering a new filename, new_filename contains bar.txt or whatever filename the user enters.
However, I also want to test the program using unit tests. Generally, to do this, I run the program as a subprocess, so that I can feed it input to stdin (and hence test it as a user would use it). I have some unit testing code which (simplified) looks like this:
p = Popen(['mypythonutility', 'some', 'arguments'], stdin=PIPE)
p.communicate('\b\b\bbar.txt')
My intention is that this should simulate the user 'backspacing' over the provided foo.txt, and entering bar.txt instead.
However, this doesn't seem to have the desired effect. Instead, it would appear, after some debugging, that new_filename in my program ends up with the equivalent of \b\b\bbar.txt in it. I was expecting just bar.txt.
What am I doing wrong?
The appropriate way to control an interactive child process from Python is to use the pexpect module. This module makes the child process believe that it is running in an interactive terminal session, and lets the parent process determine exactly which keystrokes are sent to the child process.
Pexpect is a pure Python module for spawning child applications; controlling them; and responding to expected patterns in their output. Pexpect works like Don Libes’ Expect. Pexpect allows your script to spawn a child application and control it as if a human were typing commands.
Related
I have a program called my_program that operates a system. the program runs on Linux, and I'm trying to automate it using Python.
my_program is constantly generating output and is suppose to receive input and respond to it.
When I'm running my_program in bash it does work like it should, I receive a constant output from the program and when I press a certain sequence (for instance /3 to change the mode of the system), the program responds with an output.
to start the process I am using:
self.process = Popen(my_program,stdin=PIPE,stdout=PIPE,text=True)
And in order to write input to the system I am using:
self.process.stdin.write('/3')
But the writing does not seem to work, I also tried using:
self.process.communicate('/3)
But since my system constantly generating output, it deadlooks the process and the whole program gets stuck.
Any solution for writing to a process that is constantly generating output?
Edit:
I don't think I can provide a code that can reproduce the problem because I'm using a unique SW that my company has, but it goes somthing like this:
self.process = Popen(my_program,stdin=PIPE,stdout=PIPE,text=True)
self.process.stdin.write('/3')
# try to find a specific string that indicated that the input string was received
string_received = False
while(string_received = False):
response = self.process.stdout.readline().strip()
if (response == expected_string):
break
The operating system implements buffered I/O between processes unless you specifically request otherwise.
In very brief, the output buffer will be flushed and written when it fills up, or (with default options) when you write a newline.
You can disable buffering when you create the Popen object:
self.process = Popen(my_program, stdin=PIPE, stdout=PIPE, text=True, bufsize=1)
... or you can explicitly flush() the file handle when you want to force writing.
self.process.stdin.flush()
However, as the documentation warns you, if you can't predict when the subprocess can read and when it can write, you can easily end up in deadlock. A more maintainable solution might be to run the subprocess via pexpect or similar.
I need to run a external exe file inside a python script. I need two things out of this.
Get whatever the exe outputs to the stdout (stderr).
exe stops executing only after I press the enter Key. I can't change this behavior. I need the script the pass the enter Key input after it gets the output from the previous step.
This is what I have done so far and I am not sure how to go after this.
import subprocess
first = subprocess.Popen(["myexe.exe"],shell=True,stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE, STDOUT
first = Popen(['myexe.exe'], stdout=PIPE, stderr=STDOUT, stdin=PIPE)
while first.poll() is None:
data = first.stdout.read()
if b'press enter to' in data:
first.stdin.write(b'\n')
first.stdin.close()
first.stdout.close()
This pipes stdin as well, do not forget to close your open file handles (stdin and stdout are also file handles in a sense).
Also avoid shell=True if at all possible, I use it a lot my self but best practices say you shouldn't.
I assumed python 3 here and stdin and stdout assumes bytes data as input and output.
first.poll() will poll for a exit code of your exe, if none is given it means it's still running.
Some other tips
one tedious thing to do can be to pass arguments to Popen, one neat thing to do is:
import shlex
Popen(shlex.split(cmd_str), shell=False)
It preserves space separated inputs with quotes around them, for instance python myscript.py debug "pass this parameter somewhere" would result in three parameters from sys.argv, ['myscript.py', 'debug', 'pass this parameter somewhere'] - might be useful in the future when working with Popen
Another thing that would be good is to check if there's output in stdout before reading from it, otherwise it might hang the application. To do this you could use select.
Or you could use pexpect which is often used with SSH since it lives in another user space than your application when it asks for input, you need to either fork your exe manually and read from that specific pid with os.read() or use pexpect.
I can call another program in Python using
subprocess.call(["do_something.bat"])
I want to know if I can collect the stdin input of do_something.bat?
do_something.bat is a launcher for a Java program, the Java program will prompt the user to enter project specific information such as project name, version, and will generate a project skeleton according to the user input.
I use python to call this do_something.bat, and after it generates all the projects files, I need continue to go to a specific directory under project root, but that requires to know the project name, can I get the project name that the user previously entered?
It depends a bit on how do_something.bat prompts the user.
If it simply reads from standard input your program can act as a go-between. It can prompt the output of do_something.bat, read the user's response, and then pipe the response back to the standard input of do_something.bat.
Otherwise, I do not think it is possible without adapting do_something.bat.
If you know what the exact parameters that the program will ask for and what order it will ask for them then you can collect the arguments yourself and forward them on to the subprocess.
eg.
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
# get inputs
input1 = ...
input2 = ...
child = Popen("do_something.bat", stdin=PIPE)
# Send data to stdin. Would also return data from stdout and stderr if we set
# those arguments to PIPE as well -- they are returned as a tuple
child.communicate("\n".join([input1, input2, ...]))
if child.returncode != 0:
print "do_something.bat failed to execute successfully"
I am attempting to wrap a program that is routinely used at work. When called with an insufficient number of arguments, or with a misspelled argument, the program issues a prompt to the user, asking for the needed input. As a consequence, when calling the routine with subprocess.Popen, the routine never sends any information to stdout or stderr when wrong parameters are passed. subprocess.Popen.communicate() and subprocess.Popen.read(1) both wait for a newline character before any information becomes available.
Is there any way to retrieve information from subprocess.Popen.stdout before the newline character is issued? If not, is there any method that can be used to determine whether the subprocess is waiting for input?
First thing to try: use the bufsize argument to Popen, and set it to 0:
subprocess.Popen(args, bufsize=0, ...)
Unfortunately, whether or not this works also depends upon how the subprocess flushes its output, and I presume you don't have much control over that.
On some platforms, when data written to stdout is flushed will actually change depending on whether the underlying I/O library detects an interactive terminal or a pipe. So while you might think the data is there waiting to be read — because that's how it works in a terminal window — it might actually be line buffered when you're running the same program as a subprocess from another within Python.
Added: I just realised that bufsize=0 is the default anyway. Nuts.
After asking around quite a bit, someone pointed me to the solution. Use pexpect.spawn and pexpect.expect. For example:
Bash "script" in a file titled prompt.sh to emulate the problem - read cannot be called directly from pexpect.spawn.
#!/bin/bash
read -p "This is a prompt: "
This will hang when called by subprocess.Popen. It can be handled by pexpect.spawn, though:
import pexpect
child = pexpect.spawn('./prompt.sh')
child.expect(search)
>>> 0
print child.after #Prints the matched text
>>> 'This is a prompt: '
A list, compiled regex, or list of compiled regex can also be used in place of the string in pexpect.expect to deal with differing prompts.
Is it possible to capture Python interpreter's output from a Python script?
Is it possible to capture Windows CMD's output from a Python script?
If so, which librar(y|ies) should I look into?
If you are talking about the python interpreter or CMD.exe that is the 'parent' of your script then no, it isn't possible. In every POSIX-like system (now you're running Windows, it seems, and that might have some quirk I don't know about, YMMV) each process has three streams, standard input, standard output and standard error. Bu default (when running in a console) these are directed to the console, but redirection is possible using the pipe notation:
python script_a.py | python script_b.py
This ties the standard output stream of script a to the standard input stream of script B. Standard error still goes to the console in this example. See the article on standard streams on Wikipedia.
If you're talking about a child process, you can launch it from python like so (stdin is also an option if you want two way communication):
import subprocess
# Of course you can open things other than python here :)
process = subprocess.Popen(["python", "main.py"], stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
x = process.stderr.readline()
y = process.stdout.readline()
process.wait()
See the Python subprocess module for information on managing the process. For communication, the process.stdin and process.stdout pipes are considered standard file objects.
For use with pipes, reading from standard input as lassevk suggested you'd do something like this:
import sys
x = sys.stderr.readline()
y = sys.stdin.readline()
sys.stdin and sys.stdout are standard file objects as noted above, defined in the sys module. You might also want to take a look at the pipes module.
Reading data with readline() as in my example is a pretty naïve way of getting data though. If the output is not line-oriented or indeterministic you probably want to look into polling which unfortunately does not work in windows, but I'm sure there's some alternative out there.
I think I can point you to a good answer for the first part of your question.
1. Is it possible to capture Python interpreter's output from a Python
script?
The answer is "yes", and personally I like the following lifted from the examples in the PEP 343 -- The "with" Statement document.
from contextlib import contextmanager
import sys
#contextmanager
def stdout_redirected(new_stdout):
saved_stdout = sys.stdout
sys.stdout = new_stdout
try:
yield None
finally:
sys.stdout.close()
sys.stdout = saved_stdout
And used like this:
with stdout_redirected(open("filename.txt", "w")):
print "Hello world"
A nice aspect of it is that it can be applied selectively around just a portion of a script's execution, rather than its entire extent, and stays in effect even when unhandled exceptions are raised within its context. If you re-open the file in append-mode after its first use, you can accumulate the results into a single file:
with stdout_redirected(open("filename.txt", "w")):
print "Hello world"
print "screen only output again"
with stdout_redirected(open("filename.txt", "a")):
print "Hello world2"
Of course, the above could also be extended to also redirect sys.stderr to the same or another file. Also see this answer to a related question.
Actually, you definitely can, and it's beautiful, ugly, and crazy at the same time!
You can replace sys.stdout and sys.stderr with StringIO objects that collect the output.
Here's an example, save it as evil.py:
import sys
import StringIO
s = StringIO.StringIO()
sys.stdout = s
print "hey, this isn't going to stdout at all!"
print "where is it ?"
sys.stderr.write('It actually went to a StringIO object, I will show you now:\n')
sys.stderr.write(s.getvalue())
When you run this program, you will see that:
nothing went to stdout (where print usually prints to)
the first string that gets written to stderr is the one starting with 'It'
the next two lines are the ones that were collected in the StringIO object
Replacing sys.stdout/err like this is an application of what's called monkeypatching. Opinions may vary whether or not this is 'supported', and it is definitely an ugly hack, but it has saved my bacon when trying to wrap around external stuff once or twice.
Tested on Linux, not on Windows, but it should work just as well. Let me know if it works on Windows!
You want subprocess. Look specifically at Popen in 17.1.1 and communicate in 17.1.2.
In which context are you asking?
Are you trying to capture the output from a program you start on the command line?
if so, then this is how to execute it:
somescript.py | your-capture-program-here
and to read the output, just read from standard input.
If, on the other hand, you're executing that script or cmd.exe or similar from within your program, and want to wait until the script/program has finished, and capture all its output, then you need to look at the library calls you use to start that external program, most likely there is a way to ask it to give you some way to read the output and wait for completion.