Develop Reference

Does 'finally' always execute in Python?

For any possible try-finally block in Python, is it guaranteed that the finally block will always be executed?
For example, let’s say I return while in an except block:
try:
1/0
except ZeroDivisionError:
return
finally:
print("Does this code run?")
Or maybe I re-raise an Exception:
try:
1/0
except ZeroDivisionError:
raise
finally:
print("What about this code?")
Testing shows that finally does get executed for the above examples, but I imagine there are other scenarios I haven't thought of.
Are there any scenarios in which a finally block can fail to execute in Python?

"Guaranteed" is a much stronger word than any implementation of finally deserves. What is guaranteed is that if execution flows out of the whole try-finally construct, it will pass through the finally to do so. What is not guaranteed is that execution will flow out of the try-finally.
A finally in a generator or async coroutine might never run, if the object never executes to conclusion. There are a lot of ways that could happen; here's one:
def gen(text):
try:
for line in text:
try:
yield int(line)
except:
# Ignore blank lines - but catch too much!
pass
finally:
print('Doing important cleanup')
text = ['1', '', '2', '', '3']
if any(n > 1 for n in gen(text)):
print('Found a number')
print('Oops, no cleanup.')
Note that this example is a bit tricky: when the generator is garbage collected, Python attempts to run the finally block by throwing in a GeneratorExit exception, but here we catch that exception and then yield again, at which point Python prints a warning ("generator ignored GeneratorExit") and gives up. See PEP 342 (Coroutines via Enhanced Generators) for details.
Other ways a generator or coroutine might not execute to conclusion include if the object is just never GC'ed (yes, that's possible, even in CPython), or if an async with awaits in __aexit__, or if the object awaits or yields in a finally block. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.
A finally in a daemon thread might never execute if all non-daemon threads exit first.
os._exit will halt the process immediately without executing finally blocks.
os.fork may cause finally blocks to execute twice. As well as just the normal problems you'd expect from things happening twice, this could cause concurrent access conflicts (crashes, stalls, ...) if access to shared resources is not correctly synchronized.
Since multiprocessing uses fork-without-exec to create worker processes when using the fork start method (the default on Unix), and then calls os._exit in the worker once the worker's job is done, finally and multiprocessing interaction can be problematic (example).
A C-level segmentation fault will prevent finally blocks from running.
kill -SIGKILL will prevent finally blocks from running. SIGTERM and SIGHUP will also prevent finally blocks from running unless you install a handler to control the shutdown yourself; by default, Python does not handle SIGTERM or SIGHUP.
An exception in finally can prevent cleanup from completing. One particularly noteworthy case is if the user hits control-C just as we're starting to execute the finally block. Python will raise a KeyboardInterrupt and skip every line of the finally block's contents. (KeyboardInterrupt-safe code is very hard to write).
If the computer loses power, or if it hibernates and doesn't wake up, finally blocks won't run.
The finally block is not a transaction system; it doesn't provide atomicity guarantees or anything of the sort. Some of these examples might seem obvious, but it's easy to forget such things can happen and rely on finally for too much.

Yes. Finally always wins.
The only way to defeat it is to halt execution before finally: gets a chance to execute (e.g. crash the interpreter, turn off your computer, suspend a generator forever).
I imagine there are other scenarios I haven't thought of.
Here are a couple more you may not have thought about:
def foo():
# finally always wins
try:
return 1
finally:
return 2
def bar():
# even if he has to eat an unhandled exception, finally wins
try:
raise Exception('boom')
finally:
return 'no boom'
Depending on how you quit the interpreter, sometimes you can "cancel" finally, but not like this:
>>> import sys
>>> try:
... sys.exit()
... finally:
... print('finally wins!')
...
finally wins!
$
Using the precarious os._exit (this falls under "crash the interpreter" in my opinion):
>>> import os
>>> try:
... os._exit(1)
... finally:
... print('finally!')
...
$
I'm currently running this code, to test if finally will still execute after the heat death of the universe:
try:
while True:
sleep(1)
finally:
print('done')
However, I'm still waiting on the result, so check back here later.

According to the Python documentation:
No matter what happened previously, the final-block is executed once the code block is complete and any raised exceptions handled. Even if there's an error in an exception handler or the else-block and a new exception is raised, the code in the final-block is still run.
It should also be noted that if there are multiple return statements, including one in the finally block, then the finally block return is the only one that will execute.

Well, yes and no.
What is guaranteed is that Python will always try to execute the finally block. In the case where you return from the block or raise an uncaught exception, the finally block is executed just before actually returning or raising the exception.
(what you could have controlled yourself by simply running the code in your question)
The only case I can imagine where the finally block will not be executed is when the Python interpretor itself crashes for example inside C code or because of power outage.

I found this one without using a generator function:
import multiprocessing
import time
def fun(arg):
try:
print("tried " + str(arg))
time.sleep(arg)
finally:
print("finally cleaned up " + str(arg))
return foo
list = [1, 2, 3]
multiprocessing.Pool().map(fun, list)
The sleep can be any code that might run for inconsistent amounts of time.
What appears to be happening here is that the first parallel process to finish leaves the try block successfully, but then attempts to return from the function a value (foo) that hasn't been defined anywhere, which causes an exception. That exception kills the map without allowing the other processes to reach their finally blocks.
Also, if you add the line bar = bazz just after the sleep() call in the try block. Then the first process to reach that line throws an exception (because bazz isn't defined), which causes its own finally block to be run, but then kills the map, causing the other try blocks to disappear without reaching their finally blocks, and the first process not to reach its return statement, either.
What this means for Python multiprocessing is that you can't trust the exception-handling mechanism to clean up resources in all processes if even one of the processes can have an exception. Additional signal handling or managing the resources outside the multiprocessing map call would be necessary.

You can use a finally with an if statement, below example is checking for network connection and if its connected it will run the finally block
try:
reader1, writer1 = loop.run_until_complete(self.init_socket(loop))
x = 'connected'
except:
print("cant connect server transfer") #open popup
x = 'failed'
finally :
if x == 'connected':
with open('text_file1.txt', "r") as f:
file_lines = eval(str(f.read()))
else:
print("not connected")

Will `with open ... as file` close file if a value is returned within the indented block?

I have the following function,
def load():
with open(PATH_CONFIG, 'r') as file:
return json.loads(file.read())
Will there be a file.close() called? I know that the with keyword normally calls the close() method for the file at the end of the indented block, but at the same time the return keyword means that the rest of the function does not run.

Just like try/finally, anything that exits the with block (return, break/continue that affects a loop surrounding it, exception thrown, sys.exit called, etc.) will perform appropriate cleanup as execution bubbles out of the with block.
The only exceptions are:
When there are actual bugs (in the interpreter, or in misuse of intrinsically dangerous tools like ctypes) where the interpreter itself crashes or otherwise exits "forcefully" (e.g. due to a segfault)
Calling os._exit bypasses all cleanup procedures (that's why it should never be used in anything but forked worker processes)

Return exits the with block like a normal dedent

Yes.
If an exception is raised, a context manager has the option of changing its behavior, but there's no difference between a return and falling off the end of the statement body, and with few exceptions most context managers will perform their cleanup and allow the exception to propagate.
The idea is that it's comparable to a finally statement, and will be executed no matter how the block is exited. The contextmanager class from the standard library makes this analogy concrete.
from contextlib import contextmanager
#contextmanager
def example():
print('enter')
try:
yield
print('unexceptional return')
finally:
print('exit')
We can use with example(): in various ways to see how the with statement performs in a more visible example than closing a file.

Does finally ensure some code gets run atomically, no matter what?

Assume I'm going to write a Python script that catches the KeyboardInterrupt exception to be able to get terminated by the user using Ctrl+C safely
However, I can't put all critical actions (like file writes) into the catch block because it relies on local variables and to make sure a subsequent Ctrl+C does not break it anyway.
Would it work and be good practice to use a try-catch block with empty (pass) try part and all the code inside the finally part to define this snippet as "atomic, interrupt-safe code" which may not get interrupted mid-way?
Example:
try:
with open("file.txt", "w") as f:
for i in range(1000000):
# imagine something useful that takes very long instead
data = str(data ** (data ** data))
try:
pass
finally:
# ensure that this code is not interrupted to prevent file corruption:
f.write(data)
except KeyboardInterrupt:
print("User aborted, data created so far saved in file.txt")
exit(0)
In this example I don't care for the currently produced data string, i.e. that creation could be interrupted and no write would be triggered. But once the write started, it must be completed, that's all I want to ensure. Also, what would happen if an exception (or KeyboardInterrupt) happened while performing the write inside the finally clause?

Code in finally can still be interrupted too. Python makes no guarantees about this; all it guarantees is that execution will switch to the finally suite after the try suite completed or if an exception in the try suite was raised. A try can only handle exceptions raised within its scope, not outside of it, and finally is outside of that scope.
As such there is no point in using try on a pass statement. The pass is a no-op, it won't ever be interrupted, but the finally suite can easily be interrupted still.
You'll need to pick a different technique. You could write to a separate file and move that into place on successful completion; the OS guarantees that a file move is atomic, for example. Or record your last successful write position, and truncate the file to that point if a next write is interrupted. Or write markers in your file that signal a successful record, so that reads know what to ignore.

In your case, there is no problem, because file writes are atomic, but if you have some file object implementetion, that is more complex, your try-except is in the wrong place. You have to place exception handling around the write:
try:
f.write(data)
except:
#do some action to restore file integrity
raise
For example, if you write binary data, you could to the following:
filepos = f.tell()
try:
f.write(data)
except:
# remove the already written data
f.seek(filepos)
f.truncate()
raise

finally versus atexit

I end up having to write and support short python wrapper scripts with the following high-level structure:
try:
code
...
...
except:
raise
finally:
file_handle.close()
db_conn.close()
Notice that all I do in the except block is re-raise the exception to the script caller sans window-dressing; this is not a problem in my particular context. The idea here is that cleanup code should always be executed by means of the finally block, exception or not.
Am I better off using an atexit handler for this purpose? I could do without the extra level of indentation introduced by try.

The atexit module provides a simple interface to register functions to be called when a program closes down normally. Functions registered are automatically executed upon normal interpreter termination.
import atexit
def cleanup():
print 'performimg cleanup'
# multiple functions can be registered here...
atexit.register(cleanup)
The sys module also provides a hook, sys.exitfunc, but only one function can be registered there.
Finally is accompanied by try except block, functionality of finally can also be used for something similar like cleanup, however at finally block sys.exc_info is all-None.
If the finally clause raises another exception, the saved exception is discarded however you can put try except in the function registered with atexit to handle them.
Another pro-con is atexit functions are only executes when program terminates, however you can use finally (with try-except) anywhere in the code and perform the cleanup
In you scenario, where you want to raise an exception from cleanup content, usage of atexit would be helpful, if you are ok for cleanup to happen at the end of the program

Just use contextlib.closing
with closing(resource1) as f1, closing(resource2) as f2:
f1.something()
f2.something()
And they will be automatically closed. Files objects can be used directly as contexts so you don't need the closing call.
If close is not the only method used by your resources, you can create custom functions with the contextlib.contextmanager decorator.

atexit is called upon program termination, so this is not what you are looking for.

Preventing python definition from execution

I want to know what is the best way of checking an condition in Python definition and prevent it from further execution if condition is not satisfied. Right now i am following the below mentioned scheme but it actually prints the whole trace stack. I want it to print only an error message and do not execute the rest of code. Is there any other cleaner solution for doing it.
def Mydef(n1,n2):
if (n1>n2):
raise ValueError("Arg1 should be less than Arg2)
# Some Code
Mydef(2,1)

That is what exceptions are created for. Your scheme of raising exception is good in general; you just need to add some code to catch it and process it
try:
Mydef(2,1)
except ValueError, e:
# Do some stuff when exception is raised, e.message will contain your message
In this case, execution of Mydef stops when it encounters raise ValueError line of code, and goes to the code block under except.
You can read more about exceptions processing in the documentation.
If you don't want to deal with exceptions processing, you can gracefully stop function to execute further code with return statement.
def Mydef(n1,n2):
if (n1>n2):
return

def Mydef(n1,n2):
if (n1>n2):
print "Arg1 should be less than Arg2"
return None
# Some Code
Mydef(2,1)
Functions stop executing when they reach to return statement or they run the until the end of definition. You should read about flow control in general (not specifically to python)