We Keep Coding

What is the point of using sys.exit (or raising SystemExit)?

This question is not about how to use sys.exit (or raising SystemExit directly), but rather about why you would want to use it.
If a program terminates successfully, I see no point in explicitly exiting at the end.
If a program terminates with an error, just raise that error. Why would you need to explicitly exit the program or why would you need an exit code?

Letting the program exit with an Exception is not user friendly. More exactly, it is perfectly fine when the user is a Python programmer, but if you provide a program to end users, they will expect nice error messages instead of a Python stacktrace which they will not understand.
In addition, if you use a GUI application (through tkinter or pyQt for example), the backtrace is likely to be lost, specially on Windows system. In that case, you will setup error processing which will provide the user with the relevant information and then terminate the application from inside the error processing routine. sys.exit is appropriate in that use case.

Guaranteeing calling to destruction on process termination

After reading A LOT of data on the subject I still couldn't find any actual solution to my problem (there might not be any).
My problem is as following:
In my project I have multiple drivers working with various hardware's (IO managers, programmable loads, power supplies and more).
Initializing connection to these hardware's is costly (in time), and I cant open and then close the connection for every communication iteration between us.
Meaning I cant do this (Assuming programmable load implements enter / exit):
start of code...
with programmable_load(args) as program_instance:
programmable_load_instance.do_something()
rest of code...
So I went for a different solution :
class programmable_load():
def __init__(self):
self.handler = handler_creator()
def close_connection(self):
self.handler.close_connection()
self.handler = None
def __del__(self):
if (self.handler != None):
self.close_connection()
For obvious reasons I dont 'trust' the destructor to actually get called so I explicitly call close_connection() when I want to end my program (for all drivers).
The problem happens when I abruptly terminate the process, for example when I run via debug mode and quit debugging.
In these cases the process terminates without running through any destructors.
I understand that the OS will clear all memory unused at this point, but is there any way to clear the memory in an organized manner?
and if not, is there a way to make the quit debugging function pass through a certain set of functions? Does the python process know it got a quite debugging event or does it treat it as a normal termination?
Operating system: Windows

According to this documentation:
If a process is terminated by TerminateProcess, all threads of the
process are terminated immediately with no chance to run additional
code.
(Emphasis mine.) This implies that there is nothing you can do in this case.
As detailed here, signals don't work very well on ms-windows.

As was mentioned in a comment, you could use atexit to do the cleanup. But that only works if the process is asked to close (e.g. QUIT signal on Linux) and not just killed (as is likely the case when stopping the debugging session). Similarily if you force your computer to turn off (e.g. long press power button or remove power) then it won't be called either. There is no 'solution' to that for obvious reasons. Your program can't expect to be called when the power suddenly goes off or when it is forcefully killed. The point of forcefully killing is to definitely kill the process now. If it first called your clean-up code then you could delay that which defeats the purpose. That is why there are signals such as to ask your process to stop. This is not Python specific. The same concept also applies across operating systems.
Bonus (design suggestion, not a solution): I would argue that you can still make use of the context manager (using with). Your problem is not unique. Database connections are usually kept alive for longer as well. It is a question of the scope. Move the context further up to the application level. Then it is clear what the boundary is and you don't need any magic (you are probably also aware of #contextmanager to make that a breeze).

I haven't tested properly as I don't have wingide installed over here so I can't grant you this will work but what about using setconsolectrlhandler? For instance, try something like this:
import os
import sys
import win32api
if __name__ == "__main__":
def callback(sig, func=None):
print("Exit handler called!")
try:
win32api.SetConsoleCtrlHandler(callback, True)
except Exception as e:
print("Captured exception", e)
sys.exit(1)
print("Press to quit")
input()
print("Bye!")
It'll be able to handle CTRL+C and CTRL+BREAK signals:

Simplest way to have Python output, from a compiled package?

Prior info: I'm on a Mac.
Q: How can I get terminal-like text output from the program execution, if I compile it with py2app for redistribution?
My case is a program that copies a lot of big files and takes a while to process so I would like to at least have an output notification everytime each file is copied.
This is easy if I run it on the command line, I can just print a new line.
But when I make a self-sufficient package, it simply opens on the bottom dock, with no window, and closes upon completion.
A simple text window would be fine.
Thanks in advance.

If you want to create a simple text window, you need to pick a GUI framework to do that with. For something this simple, there's no reason not to use Tkinter (which comes with any Python) or PyObjC (which is pre-installed with Apple's Python 2.7), unless you happen to be more familiar with wx, gobject, Qt, etc.
At any rate, however you do it, you'll need to write a function that takes a message and appends it to the text window (maybe creating it lazily, if necessary), and call that function wherever you would normally print. You may also want to write and install a logging handler that does the same thing, so you can just log.info stuff. (You could instead create a file-like object that does this and redirect stdout and/or stderr, but unless you have no control over the printing code, that's going to be a lot more work.)
The only real problem here is that a GUI needs an event loop, and you probably just wrote your code as a sequential script.
One way around that is to turn your whole current script into a background thread. If you're using a GUI library that allows you to access the widgets from background threads, everything is easy; your printfunc just does textwidget.append(msg). If not, it may at least have a call_on_main_thread type function, so your printfunc does call_on_main_thread(textwidget.append, msg). If worst comes to worst (and I believe with Tkinter, it does), you have to create an explicit queue to push messages through, and write a queue handler in the event loop. This recipe should give you an idea. Replace the body of workerThread with your code, and end it with self.endApplication(). (There are probably better examples out there; this was just what I found first in a quick search.)
The other way around that is to have your code cooperatively operate with the event loop. Some libraries, like wx, have functions like SafeYield that make things work if you just call it after every chunk of processing. Others don't have that, but have a way to explicitly drive the event loop from your code. Others have neither—but every event loop framework has to have a way to schedule new events, so you can break your code up into a sequence of functions that each finish quickly and then do something like root.after_idle(nextfunc).
However… are you sure you need to do this?
First, any app, including one created by py2app, will send its stdout to the terminal if you run it with Foo.app/Contents/MacOS/Foo. And you can even set things up so that open Foo.app works that way, if you want. Obviously this doesn't help for people who just double-click the app in Finder (because then there is no terminal), but sometimes it's sufficient to just have to output available when people need it and know how to follow instructions.
And you can take this farther: Create a Foo.command file that just does something like $(dirname $0)/Foo.app/Contents/MacOS/Foo, and when you double-click that file, it launches Terminal.app and runs your script.
Or you can get even simpler: Just use logging to syslog the output, and if you want to see when each file is done, just watch the log messages go by in Console.app.
Finally, do you even need py2app in the first place? If you don't have any external dependencies, just rename you script to Foo.command, and double-clicking it will run it in Terminal.app. If you do have external dependencies, you might still be able to get away with bundling it all together as a folder with a .command in it instead of as a .app.
Obviously none of these ideas are exactly a professional or newbie-friendly way to build an interface, so if that matters, you will have to create a GUI.

Multiple use of exit() in Python

Is it a bad coding practice to call the exit() function in Python repeatedly?
I'm working on a command-line tool, so there are multiple function definitions... Basically:
def usage()
def error(arg1)
def find(arg1, arg2)
In the end of usage() I call exit(), which I assume it's OK, but it's also called in the success of find(), and in error() (which is called in the failure of find().
As you can see, exit() is being called many times in my code, and I wasn't sure if this is actually a bad coding practice.

It does work to call exit() on multiple locations and if it's simple program with only you using it it's no problem. But in my opinion it always makes inspecting/debugging code more complex if there are multiple exit points. Especially if you think other developers will at some point be modifying your code or you will offer part of your code as a library to other developers.
Other option is to raise exceptions and catch them on the outer function. This way you also have chance to do some additional tasks before exiting (release some resources for example).

Not really bad practice IMO - just make sure you return an exit code reflecting the different exit points whenever that might be useful to the calling process...

I do that all the time in my scripts. In general, you need not worry about that, since python takes care of cleaning the system before program termination. I also used to do
signal.signal(signal.SIGTERM, lambda *args: sys.exit(0))
To force system cleaning up in case I need to kill a stalled script.

debugging: how to check what where my Python program is hanging?

A fairly large Python program I write, runs, but sometimes, after running for minutes or hours, in a non easily reproducible moment, hangs and outputs nothing to the screen.
I have no idea what it is doing at that moment, and in what part of code it is.
How can I run this in a debugger or something to see what lines of code is the program executing in the moment it hangs?
Its too large to put "print" statements all over the place.
I did:
python -m trace --trace /usr/local/bin/my_program.py
but that gives me so much output that I can't really see anything, just millions of lines scrolling on the screen.
Best would be if I could send some signal to the program with "kill -SIGUSR1" or something, and at that moment the program would drop into a debugger and show me the line it stopped at and possibly allow me to step through the program then.
I've tried:
pdb usr/local/bin/my_program.py
and then:
(Pdb) cont
but what do I do to see where I am when it hangs?
It doesn't throw and exception, just seems like it waits for something, possibly in an infinite loop.
One more detail: when the program hangs, and I press ^C and then (not sure if that is necessary) the program continues normally (without throwing any exception and without giving me any hint on the screen why did it stop).

This could be useful to you. I usually do
>>> import pdb
>>> import program2debug
>>> pdb.run('program2debug.test()')
I usually add a -v option to my programs, which enables tons of print statements explaining what I'm doing in detail. When you write a program in the future, consider doing the same before it gets thousands of lines big.

You could try running it in debug mode in an IDE like pydev (eclipse) or pycharm. You can break the program at any moment and get to its current execution point.

No program is ever too big to put print statements all over the place. You need to read up on the logging module and insert lots of logging.debug() statements. This is just a better form of print statement that outputs to a file, and can be turned off easily in production software. But years from now, when you need to modify the code, you can easily turn it all back on and get the benefit of the insight of the original programmer.