Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
Let’s please leave this alone. As Serhiy says run() covers everything. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 3:03 AM Oleg Broytman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:44:29PM +1100, Chris Angelico > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 7:12 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:48 AM Greg Ewing < > greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > > The check_output() function of the subprocess module raises an > > > > exception if the process returns a non-zero exit status. This is > > > > inconvenient for commands such as grep that use the return > > > > status to indicate something other than success or failure. > > > > > > > > The check_call() function has a companion call(), but here is > > > > currently no non-checking companion for check_call(). How > > > > about adding one with a signature such as > > > > > > > > output(args) --> (status, output) > > > > > > Isn't this already available as: run(args, stdout=PIPE)? Is the object > > > to the extra typing, or...? > > > > > > > Or discoverability. If you want to run a subprocess and catch its > > output, you'll naturally reach for check_output, and it feels clunkier > > to have to use run() instead. > > > > +1 on adding a nice simple function, although I'm not 100% sold on the > > name "output". > >get_output ? > > > ChrisA > > Oleg. > -- > Oleg Broytmanhttps://phdru.name/p...@phdru.name >Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. > ___ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- --Guido (mobile) ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:44:29PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 7:12 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:48 AM Greg Ewing > > wrote: > > > > > > The check_output() function of the subprocess module raises an > > > exception if the process returns a non-zero exit status. This is > > > inconvenient for commands such as grep that use the return > > > status to indicate something other than success or failure. > > > > > > The check_call() function has a companion call(), but here is > > > currently no non-checking companion for check_call(). How > > > about adding one with a signature such as > > > > > > output(args) --> (status, output) > > > > Isn't this already available as: run(args, stdout=PIPE)? Is the object > > to the extra typing, or...? > > > > Or discoverability. If you want to run a subprocess and catch its > output, you'll naturally reach for check_output, and it feels clunkier > to have to use run() instead. > > +1 on adding a nice simple function, although I'm not 100% sold on the > name "output". get_output ? > ChrisA Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmanhttps://phdru.name/p...@phdru.name Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
04.04.19 11:59, Greg Ewing пише: Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:48 AM Greg Ewing wrote: output(args) --> (status, output) Isn't this already available as: run(args, stdout=PIPE)? Yes, but you need to do more than that to get the output as a string. This is the relevant part of the implementation of check_output(): process = Popen(stdout=PIPE, *popenargs, **kwargs) output, unused_err = process.communicate() retcode = process.poll() check_output() is currently implemented (besides arguments checks and legacy support) as just run(..., stdout=PIPE, check=True).stdout For getting unchecked output you need just to omit check=True. run(..., stdout=PIPE).stdout I think that after adding run() there is no need in output(). ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:59 AM Greg Ewing wrote: > > Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:48 AM Greg Ewing > > wrote: > >>output(args) --> (status, output) > > > > Isn't this already available as: run(args, stdout=PIPE)? > > Yes, but you need to do more than that to get the output > as a string. This is the relevant part of the implementation > of check_output(): > > process = Popen(stdout=PIPE, *popenargs, **kwargs) > output, unused_err = process.communicate() > retcode = process.poll() >>> from subprocess import run, pipe >>> p = run(["grep", "njs", "/etc/passwd"], stdout=PIPE) >>> p.returncode 0 >>> p.stdout b'njs:x:1000:1000:Nathaniel J. Smith,,,:/home/njs:/usr/bin/zsh\n' I do think it's a bit weird that you write 'stdout=PIPE' to mean 'please capture stdout' – it's leaking an internal implementation detail across an abstraction boundary. But it's documented, and run() allows any combination of check=True/False, capturing stdout or not, and capturing stderr or not, without having to invent 8 different functions. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 8:02 PM Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> > +1 on adding a nice simple function, although I'm not 100% sold on the
> > name "output".
>
> The idea is that output/check_output would go together like
> call/check_call.
>
Yeah, so I think that on balance it's probably the best choice, but as
its own thing, it's a bit odd.
subprocess.output("...")
I'm, let's say, +1 on the idea in general, and +0.9 on calling it "output".
ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
Chris Angelico wrote: +1 on adding a nice simple function, although I'm not 100% sold on the name "output". The idea is that output/check_output would go together like call/check_call. -- Greg ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:48 AM Greg Ewing wrote: output(args) --> (status, output) Isn't this already available as: run(args, stdout=PIPE)? Yes, but you need to do more than that to get the output as a string. This is the relevant part of the implementation of check_output(): process = Popen(stdout=PIPE, *popenargs, **kwargs) output, unused_err = process.communicate() retcode = process.poll() -- Greg ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 7:12 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:48 AM Greg Ewing > wrote: > > > > The check_output() function of the subprocess module raises an > > exception if the process returns a non-zero exit status. This is > > inconvenient for commands such as grep that use the return > > status to indicate something other than success or failure. > > > > The check_call() function has a companion call(), but here is > > currently no non-checking companion for check_call(). How > > about adding one with a signature such as > > > > output(args) --> (status, output) > > Isn't this already available as: run(args, stdout=PIPE)? Is the object > to the extra typing, or...? > Or discoverability. If you want to run a subprocess and catch its output, you'll naturally reach for check_output, and it feels clunkier to have to use run() instead. +1 on adding a nice simple function, although I'm not 100% sold on the name "output". ChrisA ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:48 AM Greg Ewing wrote: > > The check_output() function of the subprocess module raises an > exception if the process returns a non-zero exit status. This is > inconvenient for commands such as grep that use the return > status to indicate something other than success or failure. > > The check_call() function has a companion call(), but here is > currently no non-checking companion for check_call(). How > about adding one with a signature such as > > output(args) --> (status, output) Isn't this already available as: run(args, stdout=PIPE)? Is the object to the extra typing, or...? -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-ideas] Add output() helper function to subprocess module
The check_output() function of the subprocess module raises an exception if the process returns a non-zero exit status. This is inconvenient for commands such as grep that use the return status to indicate something other than success or failure. The check_call() function has a companion call(), but here is currently no non-checking companion for check_call(). How about adding one with a signature such as output(args) --> (status, output) -- Greg ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
