Develop Reference

Get the output of python subprocess in console

process = subprocess.check_output(BACKEND+"mainbgw setup " + str(NUM_USERS), shell=True,\
stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
I am using the above statement to run a C program in django-python based server for some computations, there are some printf() statements whose output I would like to see on stdout while the server is running and executing the subprocess, how can that be done ?

If you actually don't need the output to be available to your python code as a string, you can just use os.system, or subprocess.call without redirecting stdout elsewhere. Then stdout of your C program will just go directly to stdout of your python program.
If you need both streaming stdout and access to the output as a string, you should use subprocess.Popen (or the old popen2.popen4) to obtain a file descriptor of the output stream, then repeatedly read lines from the stream until you exhausted it. In the mean time, you keep a concatenated version of all data you grabbed. This is an example of the loop.

Simulate Ctrl-C keyboard interrupt in Python while working in Linux

I am working on some scripts (in the company I work in) that are loaded/unloaded into hypervisors to fire a piece of code when an event occurs. The only way to actually unload a script is to hit Ctrl-C. I am writing a function in Python that automates the process
As soon as it sees the string "done" in the output of the program, it should kill the vprobe.
I am using subprocess.Popen to execute the command:
lineList = buff.readlines()
cmd = "vprobe /vprobe/myhello.emt"
p = subprocess.Popen(args = cmd, shell=True,stdout = buff, universal_newlines = True,preexec_fn=os.setsid)
while not re.search("done",lineList[-1]):
print "waiting"
os.kill(p.pid,signal.CTRL_C_EVENT)
As you can see, I am writing the output in buff file descriptor opened in read+write mode. I check the last line; if it has 'done', I kill it. Unfortunately, the CTRL_C_EVENT is only valid for Windows.
What can I do for Linux?

I think you can just send the Linux equivalent, signal.SIGINT (the interrupt signal).
(Edit: I used to have something here discouraging the use of this strategy for controlling subprocesses, but on more careful reading it sounds like you've already decided you need control-C in this specific case... So, SIGINT should do it.)

In Linux, Ctrl-C keyboard interrupt can be sent programmatically to a process using Popen.send_signal(signal.SIGINT) function. For example
import subprocess
import signal
..
process = subprocess.Popen(..)
..
process.send_signal(signal.SIGINT)
..
Don't use Popen.communicate() for blocking commands..

Maybe I misunderstand something, but the way you do it it is difficult to get the desired result.
Whatever buff is, you query it first, then use it in the context of Popen() and then you hope that by maciv lineList fills itself up.
What you probably want is something like
logfile = open("mylogfile", "a")
p = subprocess.Popen(['vprobe', '/vprobe/myhello.emt'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE, buff, universal_newlines=True, preexec_fn=os.setsid)
for line in p.stdout:
logfile.write(line)
if re.search("done", line):
break
print "waiting"
os.kill(p.pid, signal.CTRL_C_EVENT)
This gives you a pipe end fed by your vprobe script which you can read out linewise and act appropriately upon the found output.

Keeping a pipe to a process open

I have an app that reads in stuff from stdin and returns, after a newline, results to stdout
A simple (stupid) example:
$ app
Expand[(x+1)^2]<CR>
x^2 + 2*x + 1
100 - 4<CR>
96
Opening and closing the app requires a lot of initialization and clean-up (its an interface to a Computer Algebra System), so I want to keep this to a minimum.
I want to open a pipe in Python to this process, write strings to its stdin and read out the results from stdout. Popen.communicate() doesn't work for this, as it closes the file handle, requiring to reopen the pipe.
I've tried something along the lines of this related question:
Communicate multiple times with a process without breaking the pipe? but I'm not sure how to wait for the output. It is also difficult to know a priori how long it will take the app to finish to process for the input at hand, so I don't want to make any assumptions. I guess most of my confusion comes from this question: Non-blocking read on a subprocess.PIPE in python where it is stated that mixing high and low level functions is not a good idea.
EDIT:
Sorry that I didn't give any code before, got interrupted. This is what I've tried so far and it seems to work, I'm just worried that something goes wrong unnoticed:
from subprocess import Popen, PIPE
pipe = Popen(["MathPipe"], stdin=PIPE, stdout=PIPE)
expressions = ["Expand[(x+1)^2]", "Integrate[Sin[x], {x,0,2*Pi}]"] # ...
for expr in expressions:
pipe.stdin.write(expr)
while True:
line = pipe.stdout.readline()
if line != '':
print line
# output of MathPipe is always terminated by ';'
if ";" in line:
break
Potential problems with this?

Using subprocess, you can't do this reliably. You might want to look at using the pexpect library. That won't work on Windows - if you're on Windows, try winpexpect.
Also, if you're trying to do mathematical stuff in Python, check out SAGE. They do a lot of work on interfacing with other open-source maths software, so there's a chance they've already done what you're trying to.

Perhaps you could pass stdin=subprocess.PIPE as an argument to subprocess.Popen. This will make the process' stdin available as a general file-like object:
import sys, subprocess
proc = subprocess.Popen(["mathematica <args>"], stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
stdout=sys.stdout, shell=True)
proc.stdin.write("Expand[ (x-1)^2 ]") # Write whatever to the process
proc.stdin.flush() # Ensure nothing is left in the buffer
proc.terminate() # Kill the process
This directs the subprocess' output directly to your python process' stdout. If you need to read the output and do some editing first, that is possible as well. Check out http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#popen-objects.

Better multithreaded use of Python subprocess.Popen & communicate()?

I'm running multiple commands which may take some time, in parallel, on a Linux machine running Python 2.6.
So, I used subprocess.Popen class and process.communicate() method to parallelize execution of mulitple command groups and capture the output at once after execution.
def run_commands(commands, print_lock):
# this part runs in parallel.
outputs = []
for command in commands:
proc = subprocess.Popen(shlex.split(command), stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT, close_fds=True)
output, unused_err = proc.communicate() # buffers the output
retcode = proc.poll() # ensures subprocess termination
outputs.append(output)
with print_lock: # print them at once (synchronized)
for output in outputs:
for line in output.splitlines():
print(line)
At somewhere else it's called like this:
processes = []
print_lock = Lock()
for ...:
commands = ... # a group of commands is generated, which takes some time.
processes.append(Thread(target=run_commands, args=(commands, print_lock)))
processes[-1].start()
for p in processes: p.join()
print('done.')
The expected result is that each output of a group of commands is displayed at once while execution of them is done in parallel.
But from the second output group (of course, the thread that become the second is changed due to scheduling indeterminism), it begins to print without newlines and adding spaces as many as the number of characters printed in each previous line and input echo is turned off -- the terminal state is "garbled" or "crashed". (If I issue reset shell command, it restores normal.)
At first, I tried to find the reason from handling of '\r', but it was not the reason. As you see in my code, I handled it properly using splitlines(), and I confirmed that with repr() function applied to the output.
I think the reason is concurrent use of pipes in Popen and communicate() for stdout/stderr. I tried check_output shortcut method in Python 2.7, but no success. Of course, the problem described above does not occur if I serialize all command executions and prints.
Is there any better way to handle Popen and communicate() in parallel?

A final result inspired by the comment from J.F.Sebastian.
http://bitbucket.org/daybreaker/kaist-cs443/src/247f9ecf3cee/tools/manage.py
It seems to be a Python bug.

I am not sure it is clear what run_commands needs to be actually doing, but it seems to be simply doing a poll on a subprocess, ignoring the return-code and continuing in the loop. When you get to the part where you are printing output, how could you know the sub-processes have completed?

In your example code I noticed your use of:
for line in output.splitlines():
to address partially the issue of " /r " ; use of
for line in output.splitlines(True):
would have been helpful.

python run multi command in the same time

Prior to this,I run two command in for loop,like
for x in $set:
command
In order to save time,i want to run these two command in the same time,like parallel method in makefile
Thanks
Lyn

The threading module won't give you much performance-wise because of the Global Interpreter Lock.
I think the best way to do this is to use the subprocess module and open each command with it's own stdout.
processes = {}
for cmd in ['cmd1', 'cmd2', 'cmd3']:
p = subprocess.Popen('cmd1', stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
processes[p.stdout] = p
while len(processes):
rfds, _, _ = select.select(processes.keys(), [], [])
for fd in rfds:
process = processses[fd]
print fd.read()
if process.returncode is not None:
print "Process {0} returned with code {1}".format(process.pid, process.returncode)
del processes[fd]
You basically have to use select to see which file descriptors are ready and you have to check their returncode to see if doing a "read" caused them to exit. Processes basically go into a wait state until their stdout is closed. If you would like to do some things while you're waiting, you can put a timeout on select.select() so you'll stop waiting after so long. You can test the length of rfds and if it is 0 then you know that the timeout happened.

twisted or select module is probably what you're after.
If all you want to do is a bunch of batch commands, shell scripts, ie
#!/bin/sh
for i in "command1 command2 command3"; do
$i &
done
Might work better. Alternately, a Makefile like you said.

Look at the threading module.