I'm kind of struggling to understand what is the python way of solving this simple problem.
My problem is quite simple. If you use the follwing code it will hang. This is well documented in the subprocess module doc.
import subprocess
proc = subprocess.Popen(['cat','-'],
stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
)
for i in range(100000):
proc.stdin.write('%d\n' % i)
output = proc.communicate()[0]
print output
Searching for a solution (there is a very insightful thread, but I've lost it now) I found this solution (among others) that uses an explicit fork:
import os
import sys
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
def produce(to_sed):
for i in range(100000):
to_sed.write("%d\n" % i)
to_sed.flush()
#this would happen implicitly, anyway, but is here for the example
to_sed.close()
def consume(from_sed):
while 1:
res = from_sed.readline()
if not res:
sys.exit(0)
#sys.exit(proc.poll())
print 'received: ', [res]
def main():
proc = Popen(['cat','-'],stdin=PIPE,stdout=PIPE)
to_sed = proc.stdin
from_sed = proc.stdout
pid = os.fork()
if pid == 0 :
from_sed.close()
produce(to_sed)
return
else :
to_sed.close()
consume(from_sed)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
While this solution is conceptually very easy to understand, it uses one more process and stuck as too low level compared to the subprocess module (that is there just to hide this kind of things...).
I'm wondering: is there a simple and clean solution using the subprocess module that won't hung or to implement this patter I have to do a step back and implement an old-style select loop or an explicit fork?
Thanks
To use a pipe with the subprocess module, you have to pass shell=True . In your particular case, however, the simple solution is to call subprocess. check_output(('ps', '-A')) and then str. find on the output.
From the subprocess docs: bufsize, if given, has the same meaning as the corresponding argument to the built-in open() function: 0 means unbuffered, 1 means line buffered, any other positive value means use a buffer of (approximately) that size.
The main difference is that subprocess. run executes a command and waits for it to finish, while with subprocess. Popen you can continue doing your stuff while the process finishes and then just repeatedly call subprocess. communicate yourself to pass and receive data to your process.
To write to a Python subprocess' stdin, we can use the communicate method. to call Popen with the command we want to run in a list. And we set stdout , stdin , and stderr all to PIPE to pipe them to their default locations.
If you want a pure Python solution, you need to put either the reader or the writer in a separate thread. The threading
package is a lightweight way to do this, with convenient access to common objects and no messy forking.
import subprocess
import threading
import sys
proc = subprocess.Popen(['cat','-'],
stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
)
def writer():
for i in range(100000):
proc.stdin.write(b'%d\n' % i)
proc.stdin.close()
thread = threading.Thread(target=writer)
thread.start()
for line in proc.stdout:
sys.stdout.write(line.decode())
thread.join()
proc.wait()
It might be neat to see the subprocess
module modernized to support streams and coroutines, which would allow pipelines that mix Python pieces and shell pieces to be constructed more elegantly.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With