Nick Coghlan added the comment:
This change has made the subprocess docs intimidating and unapproachable again
- this is a *LOWER* level swiss-army knife API than the 3 high level
convenience functions.
I've filed http://bugs.python.org/issue27050 to suggest changing the way this
is
Changes by Berker Peksag berker.pek...@gmail.com:
--
stage: commit review - resolved
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
___
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
I expect this can be closed now, unless there's some post-commit review
somewhere that needs addressing?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
Changes by Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org:
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
6a following in-person review with Gregory:
- Reapplied to the updated codebase.
- Docs: mention the older functions near the top, because they'll still be
important for some time.
- Docs: Be explicit that combined stdout/stderr goes in stdout attribute.
-
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset f0a00ee094ff by Gregory P. Smith in branch 'default':
Add a subprocess.run() function than returns a CalledProcess instance for a
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/f0a00ee094ff
--
nosy: +python-dev
___
Gregory P. Smith added the comment:
thanks! i'll close this later after some buildbot runs and any post-commit
reviews.
--
stage: patch review - commit review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
I am still keen for this to move forwards. I am at PyCon if anyone wants to
discuss it in person.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
Gregory P. Smith added the comment:
I'm at pycon as well, we can get this taken care of here. :)
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Great! I'm free after my IPython tutorial this afternoon, all of tomorrow, and
I'm around for the sprints.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
Changes by Berker Peksag berker.pek...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +berker.peksag
stage: - patch review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Thanks, that was an oversight. Patch 5 adds CompletedProcess to __all__.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file38574/subprocess_run5.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Martin Panter added the comment:
One thing that just popped into my mind that I don’t think has been discussed:
The patch adds the new run() function to subprocess.__all__, but the
CompletedProcess class is still missing. Was that an oversight or a conscious
decision?
--
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Is there anything further I should be doing for this?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Can I interest any of you in further review? I think I have responded to all
comments so far. Thanks!
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
R. David Murray added the comment:
string vs list: see issue 6760 for some background. Yes, I think it is an API
bug, but there is no consensus for fixing it (it would require a deprecation
period).
Jeff: in general your points to do not seem to be apropos to this particular
proposed
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Jeff: This makes it somewhat easier to handle input and output as strings
instead of streams. Most of the functionality was already there, but this makes
it more broadly useful. It doesn't especially address your other points, but
I'm not aiming to completely
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Would anyone like to do further review of this - or commit it ;-) ?
I don't think anyone has objected to the concept since I brought it up on
python-ideas, but if anyone is -1, please say so.
--
___
Python tracker
Martin Panter added the comment:
Have you seen the code review comments on the Rietveld,
https://bugs.python.org/review/23342? (Maybe check spam emails.) Many of the
comments from the earlier patches still stand. In particular, I would like to
see the “input” default value addressed, at least
Jeff Hammel added the comment:
A few observations in passing. I beg your pardon for not commenting after a
more in depth study of the issue, but as someone that's written and managed
several subprocess module front-ends, my general observations seem applicable.
subprocess needs easier and
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Aha, I hadn't seen any of those. They had indeed been caught by the spam
filter. I'll look over them now.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Fourth version of patch, responding to review comments on Rietveld. The major
changes are:
- Eliminated the corner case when passing input=None to run() - now it's a real
default parameter. Added a shim in check_output to keep it behaving the old way
in case
Changes by Chris Rebert pyb...@rebertia.com:
--
nosy: +cvrebert
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Third version of the patch (subprocess_run3):
- Simplifies the documentation of the trio (call, check_call, check_output) to
describe them in terms of the equivalent run() call.
- Remove a warning about using PIPE with check_output - I believe this was
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Yep, they are pretty much equivalent to those, except:
- check_call has a 'return 0' if it succeeds
- add '.stdout' to the end of the expression for check_output
I'll work on documenting the trio in those terms.
If people want, some/all of the trio could also
Martin Panter added the comment:
It’s okay to leave them as independent classes, if you don’t want multiple
inheritance. I was just putting the idea out there. It is a similar pattern to
the HTTPError exception and HTTPResponse return value for urlopen().
--
Martin Panter added the comment:
Maybe you don’t want to touch the implementation of the “older high-level API”
for fear of subtly breaking something, but for clarification, and perhaps
documentation, would the old functions now be equivalent to this?
def call(***):
# Verify PIPE not in
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Updated patch following Gregory's suggestions:
- The check_returncode parameter is now called check. The method on
CompletedProcess is still check_returncode, though.
- Clarified the docs about args
- CalledProcessError and TimeoutExceeded gain a stdout
Ethan Furman added the comment:
I haven't checked the code, but does check_output and friends combine stdout
and stderr when ouput=PIPE?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
Gregory P. Smith added the comment:
Ethan: check_output combines them when stdout=subprocess.STDOUT is passed (
https://docs.python.org/3.5/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.STDOUT).
Never pass stdout=PIPE or stderr= PIPE to call() or check*() methods as
that will lead to a deadlock when a pipe
Changes by Martin Panter vadmium...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +vadmium
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com:
--
nosy: +r.david.murray
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
___
Changes by Gregory P. Smith g...@krypto.org:
--
assignee: - gregory.p.smith
nosy: +gregory.p.smith
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
New submission from Thomas Kluyver:
This follows on from the python-ideas thread starting here:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-January/031479.html
subprocess gains:
- A CompletedProcess class representing a process that has finished, with
attributes args, returncode,
Changes by Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org:
--
nosy: +barry
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Thomas Kluyver added the comment:
Another question: With this patch, CalledProcessError and TimeoutExceeded
exceptions now have attributes called output and stderr. It would seem less
surprising for output to be called stdout, but we can't break existing code
that relies on the output
Changes by Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us:
--
nosy: +ethan.furman
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue23342
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Gregory P. Smith added the comment:
A 1) Opting not to capture by default is good. Let people explicitly request
that.
A 2) check seems like a reasonable parameter name for the should i raise if
rc != 0 bool. I don't have any other good bikeshed name suggestions.
A 3) Calling it args the
38 matches
Mail list logo
