We Keep Coding

Defining a module from within a module [duplicate]

I'd like to dynamically create a module from a dictionary, and I'm wondering if adding an element to sys.modules is really the best way to do this. EG
context = { a: 1, b: 2 }
import types
test_context_module = types.ModuleType('TestContext', 'Module created to provide a context for tests')
test_context_module.__dict__.update(context)
import sys
sys.modules['TestContext'] = test_context_module
My immediate goal in this regard is to be able to provide a context for timing test execution:
import timeit
timeit.Timer('a + b', 'from TestContext import *')
It seems that there are other ways to do this, since the Timer constructor takes objects as well as strings. I'm still interested in learning how to do this though, since a) it has other potential applications; and b) I'm not sure exactly how to use objects with the Timer constructor; doing so may prove to be less appropriate than this approach in some circumstances.
EDITS/REVELATIONS/PHOOEYS/EUREKA:
I've realized that the example code relating to running timing tests won't actually work, because import * only works at the module level, and the context in which that statement is executed is that of a function in the testit module. In other words, the globals dictionary used when executing that code is that of __main__, since that's where I was when I wrote the code in the interactive shell. So that rationale for figuring this out is a bit botched, but it's still a valid question.
I've discovered that the code run in the first set of examples has the undesirable effect that the namespace in which the newly created module's code executes is that of the module in which it was declared, not its own module. This is like way weird, and could lead to all sorts of unexpected rattlesnakeic sketchiness. So I'm pretty sure that this is not how this sort of thing is meant to be done, if it is in fact something that the Guido doth shine upon.
The similar-but-subtly-different case of dynamically loading a module from a file that is not in python's include path is quite easily accomplished using imp.load_source('NewModuleName', 'path/to/module/module_to_load.py'). This does load the module into sys.modules. However this doesn't really answer my question, because really, what if you're running python on an embedded platform with no filesystem?
I'm battling a considerable case of information overload at the moment, so I could be mistaken, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the imp module that's capable of this.
But the question, essentially, at this point is how to set the global (ie module) context for an object. Maybe I should ask that more specifically? And at a larger scope, how to get Python to do this while shoehorning objects into a given module?

Hmm, well one thing I can tell you is that the timeit function actually executes its code using the module's global variables. So in your example, you could write
import timeit
timeit.a = 1
timeit.b = 2
timeit.Timer('a + b').timeit()
and it would work. But that doesn't address your more general problem of defining a module dynamically.
Regarding the module definition problem, it's definitely possible and I think you've stumbled on to pretty much the best way to do it. For reference, the gist of what goes on when Python imports a module is basically the following:
module = imp.new_module(name)
execfile(file, module.__dict__)
That's kind of the same thing you do, except that you load the contents of the module from an existing dictionary instead of a file. (I don't know of any difference between types.ModuleType and imp.new_module other than the docstring, so you can probably use them interchangeably) What you're doing is somewhat akin to writing your own importer, and when you do that, you can certainly expect to mess with sys.modules.
As an aside, even if your import * thing was legal within a function, you might still have problems because oddly enough, the statement you pass to the Timer doesn't seem to recognize its own local variables. I invoked a bit of Python voodoo by the name of extract_context() (it's a function I wrote) to set a and b at the local scope and ran
print timeit.Timer('print locals(); a + b', 'sys.modules["__main__"].extract_context()').timeit()
Sure enough, the printout of locals() included a and b:
{'a': 1, 'b': 2, '_timer': <built-in function time>, '_it': repeat(None, 999999), '_t0': 1277378305.3572791, '_i': None}
but it still complained NameError: global name 'a' is not defined. Weird.

Using module as a singleton in Python - is that ok?

I've got a really complex singleton object. I've decided to modify it, so it'll be a separate module with module--wide global variables that would store data.
Are there some pitfalls of this approach? I just feel, like that's a little bit hacky, and that there may be some problems I cannot see now.
Maybe someone did this or have some opinion :) Thanks in advance for help.
Regards.
// Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example:
"""
This is __init__.py of the module, that could be used as a singleton:
I need to set and get value of IMPORTANT_VARIABLE from different places in my code.
Folder structure:
--singleton_module
|
-__init__.py
Example of usage:
import singleton_module as my_singleton
my_singleton.set_important_variable(3)
print(my_singleton.get_important_variable())
"""
IMPORTANT_VARIABLE = 0
def set_important_variable(value):
global IMPORTANT_VARIABLE
IMPORTANT_VARIABLE = value
def get_important_variable():
return IMPORTANT_VARIABLE

Technically, Python modules ARE singletons, so from this point of view there's no particular issue (except the usual issues with singletons that is) with your code. I'd just spell the varibale in all_lower (ALL_UPPER denotes a pseudo-constant) and prefix it with either a single ("protected") or double ("really private") leading underscore to make clear it's not part of the public API (standard Python naming convention).
Now whether singletons are a good idea is another debate but that's not the point here...
e.g that in one potential situation I may lost data, or that module could be imported in different places of code two times, so it would not be a singleton if imported inside scope of function or something like that.
A module is only instanciated once per process (the first time it's imported), then subsquent imports will directly get if from sys.modules. The only case where you could have two distinct instances of the same module is when the module is imported by two different path, which can only happens if you have a somewhat broken sys.path ie something like this:
src/
foo/
__init.py
bar/
__init__.py
baaz/
__init__.py
mymodule.py
with both "src" and "foo" in sys.path, then importing mymodule once as from foo.bar.baaz import mymodule and a second time as from bar.baaz import mymodule
Needless to say that it's a degenerate case, but it can happens and lead to hard to diagnose bugs. Note that when you have this case, you do have quite a few other things that breaks, like identity testing anything from mymodule.
Also, I am not sure how would using object instead of module increase security
It doesn't.
And I am just asking, if that's not a bad practice, maybe someone did this and found some problems. This is probably not a popular pattern
Well, quite on the contrary you'll often find advises on using modules as singletons instead of using classes with only staticmethods, classmethods and class attributes (another way of implementing a singleton in Python). This most often concerns stateless classes used as namespaces while your example does have a state, but this doesn't make much practical difference.
Now what you won't get are all the nice OO features like computed attributes, inheritance, magicmethods etc, but I assume you already understood this.
As far as I'm concerned, depending on the context, I might rather use a plain class but only expose one single instance of the class as the module's API ie:
# mymodule.py
__all__ = ["mysingleton"]
class __MySingletonLike(object):
def __init__(self):
self._variable = 42
#property
def variable(self):
return self._variable
#variable.setter
def variable(self, value):
check_value(value) # imaginary validation
self._variable = value
mysingleton = __MySingleton()
but that's only when I have special concerns about the class (implementation reuse, proper testability, other special features requiring a class etc).

Is there any way to make pydev (or whatever Python IDE) understand module imported by using __import__ or exec

Introduction
Pydev is a great eclipse plugin that let us write python code easily.
It can even give autocompletion suggestion when I do this:
from package.module import Random_Class
x = Random_Class()
x. # the autocompletion will be popped up,
# showing every method & attribute inside Random_Class
That is great !!!
The Problem (And My Question)
However, when I don't use explicit import, and use __import__ for example, I can't have the same autocompletion effect.
import_location = ".".join(('package', 'module'))
__import__(import_location, globals(), locals(), ['*'])
My_Class = getattr(sys.modules[import_location], 'Random_Class')
x = My_Class()
x. # I expect autocompletion, but nothing happened
Question: is there any way (in pydev or any IDE) to make the second one also
show autocompletion?
Why do I need to do this?
Well, I make a simple MVC framework, and I want to provide something like load_model, load_controller, and load_view which is still work with autocompletion (or at least possible to work)
So, instead of leave users do this (although I don't forbid them to do so):
from applications.the_application.models.the_model import The_Model
x = The_Model()
x. # autocompletion works
I want to let users do this:
x = load_model('the_application', 'the_model')()
x. # autocompletion still works
The "applications" part is actually configurable by another script, and I don't want users to change all of their importing model/controller part everytime they change the configuration. Plus, I think load_model, load_controller, and load_view make MVC pattern shown more obvious.
Unexpected Answer
I know some tricks such as doing this (as what people do with
web2py):
import_location = ".".join(('package', 'module'))
__import__(import_location, globals(), locals(), ['*'])
My_Class = getattr(sys.modules[import_location], 'Random_Class')
x = My_Class()
if 0:
from package.module import Random_Class
x = Random_Class()
x. # Now autocompletion is going to work
and I don't expect to do this, since it will only add unnecessary
extra work.
I don't expect any don't try to be clever comments. I have enough of them
I don't expect dynamic import is evil comments. I'm not a purist.
I don't expect any just use django, or pylons, or whatever comments. Such as comments even unrelated to my question.

I have done this before. This may be slightly different from your intended method, so let me know if it doesn't apply.
I dynamically import different modules that all subclass a master class, using similar code to your example. Because the subclassing module already imports the master, I don't need to import it in the main module.
To get highlighting, the solution was to import the master class into the main module first, even though it wasn't used directly. In my case it was a good fallback if the particular subclass didn't exist, but that's an implementation detail.
This only works if your classes all inherit from one parent.

Not really an answer to my own question. However, I can change the approach. So, instead of provide "load_model()", I can use relative import. Something like this:
from ..models.my_model import Model_Class as Great_Model
m = Great_Model()

Importing class from another file in python - I know the fix, but why doesn't the original work?

I can make this code work, but I am still confused why it won't work the first way I tried.
I am practicing python because my thesis is going to be coded in it (doing some cool things with Arduino and PC interfaces). I'm trying to import a class from another file into my main program so that I can create objects. Both files are in the same directory. It's probably easier if you have a look at the code at this point.
#from ArduinoBot import *
#from ArduinoBot import ArduinoBot
import ArduinoBot
# Create ArduinoBot object
bot1 = ArduinoBot()
# Call toString inside bot1 object
bot1.toString()
input("Press enter to end.")
Here is the very basic ArduinoBot class
class ArduinoBot:
def toString(self):
print ("ArduinoBot toString")
Either of the first two commented out import statements will make this work, but not the last one, which to me seems the most intuitive and general. There's not a lot of code for stuff to go wrong here, it's a bit frustrating to be hitting these kind of finicky language specific quirks when I had heard some many good things about Python. Anyway I must be doing something wrong, but why doesn't the simple 'import ClassName' or 'import FileName' work?
Thank you for your help.

consider a file (example.py):
class foo(object):
pass
class bar(object):
pass
class example(object):
pass
Now in your main program, if you do:
import example
what should be imported from the file example.py? Just the class example? should the class foo come along too? The meaning would be too ambiguous if import module pulled the whole module's namespace directly into your current namespace.
The idea is that namespaces are wonderful. They let you know where the class/function/data came from. They also let you group related things together (or equivalently, they help you keep unrelated things separate!). A module sets up a namespace and you tell python exactly how you want to bring that namespace into the current context (namespace) by the way you use import.
from ... import * says -- bring everything in that module directly into my namespace.
from ... import ... as ... says, bring only the thing that I specify directly into my namespace, but give it a new name here.
Finally, import ... simply says bring that module into the current namespace, but keep it separate. This is the most common form in production code because of (at least) 2 reasons.
It prevents name clashes. You can have a local class named foo which won't conflict with the foo in example.py -- You get access to that via example.foo
It makes it easy to trace down which module a class came from for debugging.
consider:
from foo import *
from bar import *
a = AClass() #did this come from foo? bar? ... Hmmm...
In this case, to get access to the class example from example.py, you could also do:
import example
example_instance = example.example()
but you can also get foo:
foo_instance = example.foo()

The simple answer is that modules are things in Python. A module has its own status as a container for classes, functions, and other objects. When you do import ArduinoBot, you import the module. If you want things in that module -- classes, functions, etc. -- you have to explicitly say that you want them. You can either import them directly with from ArduinoBot import ..., or access them via the module with import ArduinoBot and then ArduinoBot.ArduinoBot.
Instead of working against this, you should leverage the container-ness of modules to allow you to group related stuff into a module. It may seem annoying when you only have one class in a file, but when you start putting multiple classes and functions in one file, you'll see that you don't actually want all that stuff being automatically imported when you do import module, because then everything from all modules would conflict with other things. The modules serve a useful function in separating different functionality.
For your example, the question you should ask yourself is: if the code is so simple and compact, why didn't you put it all in one file?

Import doesn't work quite the you think it does. It does work the way it is documented to work, so there's a very simple remedy for your problem, but nonetheless:
import ArduinoBot
This looks for a module (or package) on the import path, executes the module's code in a new namespace, and then binds the module object itself to the name ArduinoBot in the current namespace. This means a module global variable named ArduinoBot in the ArduinoBot module would now be accessible in the importing namespace as ArduinoBot.ArduinoBot.
from ArduinoBot import ArduinoBot
This loads and executes the module as above, but does not bind the module object to the name ArduinoBot. Instead, it looks for a module global variable ArduinoBot within the module, and binds whatever object that referred to the name ArduinoBot in the current namespace.
from ArduinoBot import *
Similarly to the above, this loads and executes a module without binding the module object to any name in the current namespace. It then looks for all module global variables, and binds them all to the same name in the current namespace.
This last form is very convenient for interactive work in the python shell, but generally considered bad style in actual development, because it's not clear what names it actually binds. Considering it imports everything global in the imported module, including any names that it imported at global scope, it very quickly becomes extremely difficult to know what names are in scope or where they came from if you use this style pervasively.

The module itself is an object. The last approach does in fact work, if you access your class as a member of the module. Either if the following will work, and either may be appropriate, depending on what else you need from the imported items:
from my_module import MyClass
foo = MyClass()
or
import my_module
foo = my_module.MyClass()
As mentioned in the comments, your module and class usually don't have the same name in python. That's more a Java thing, and can sometimes lead to a little confusion here.

Is it possible to overload from/import in Python?

Is it possible to overload the from/import statement in Python?
For example, assuming jvm_object is an instance of class JVM, is it possible to write this code:
class JVM(object):
def import_func(self, cls):
return something...
jvm = JVM()
# would invoke JVM.import_func
from jvm import Foo

This post demonstrates how to use functionality introduced in PEP-302 to import modules over the web. I post it as an example of how to customize the import statement rather than as suggested usage ;)

It's hard to find something which isn't possible in a dynamic language like Python, but do we really need to abuse everything? Anyway, here it is:
from types import ModuleType
import sys
class JVM(ModuleType):
Foo = 3
sys.modules['JVM'] = JVM
from JVM import Foo
print Foo
But one pattern I've seen in several libraries/projects is some kind of a _make_module() function, which creates a ModuleType dynamically and initializes everything in it. After that, the current Module is replaced by the new module (using the assignment to sys.modules) and the _make_module() function gets deleted. The advantage of that, is that you can loop over the module and even add objects to the module inside that loop, which is quite useful sometimes (but use it with caution!).