Exec, execfile, os.system, subprocess, funtion (if name == main)...
What is the best method, and why, to run multiple python files sequentially as well as possibly multiple times (in a loop) through a single "master" script while also showing status updates via print statements from inside each file on an IDE console?
It depends on your priorities.
Using the condition if __name__ == "__main__" is beneficial in case your external scripts are not dynamically changing, or, for some reason, you wish to parse all you project files at once at the start of the program.
Other methods are beneficial if you wish to execute your external scripts on demeand or upon dynamic modification of their code.
To sum-up...
if __name__ == "__main__" parses all your project scripts at once when the main script run.
Other methods start executing your external scripts at the moment the code sequence reachs the execution of each external script.
I try to create a python program which will deobfuscate powershell malware, which uses IEX. My python program is actually hooking the IEX function and instead of running the desired string, it will print the string.
Now my problem is that I have some .ps1 scripts (for examples 1.ps1, 2.ps1, etc..) and I want to run all of them under the same session so that by this, all the local variables created by 1.ps1 script, the 2.ps1 script will be able to use...
Now I tried so many ways, First I tried with subprocess but it always creates a new session for every time I enter a command (which is the path of the .ps1 file). Then I found this project at GitHub:
https://gist.github.com/MarkBaggett/a7c10195b2626c78009bf73bcdb6db20
Which is really awesome and did work but still, it seems that when I run the command ./1.ps1 it still does not store the local variables at the session (Maybe it opens a new one when running a script).
I tried to do also "Get-Content 1.ps1 | iex" but then it crashes since I have functions there for example:
function Invoke-Expression()
{
param(
[Parameter( `
Mandatory=$True, `
Valuefrompipeline = $True)]
[String]$Command
)
Write-Host $Command
}
taken from PSDecode project:
https://github.com/R3MRUM/PSDecode/blob/master/PSDecode.psm1#L28
Anyway, any ideas about how I can do this? I have those scripts on my desktop but no idea how to run them at the same session so they will use the same local variables...
Two things that I did though but they really suck:
1. Convert all the scripts to 1 script and run it, but in next run that I will use this program I might have 100 scripts or more and I don't really want to do this.
2. I can save the local variables from each script and load it to another yet I want to use it in the worst case scenario and still didn't get there.
Thank you so much for helping me and sorry for my grammar my English is not my mother language as you can see :)
Maybe you're looking for dot sourcing:
Runs a script in the current scope so that any functions, aliases, and variables that the script creates are added to the current scope.
PowerShell
. c:\scripts\sample.ps1
If so dot-source your ps1 files, and call the functions inside them.
Hope that helps.
I don't have a lot of experience coding so I'm sorry if this has been answered before; I couldn't find anything that helped.
I just completed a project on a Raspberry Pi that runs some RGB LED strips via PWM. I have a program that runs the lights and works fine with a few different modes (rainbow shifting, strobe, solid color) but with each new mode I add the program get longer and more convoluted. I would like to have each separate mode be its own script that gets started or stopped by a sort of master script. That way I could easily add a new mode by simply writing a separate program and adding it to the list on the master script instead of mucking around inside a giant program with everything in it and hoping I don't break something. I guess what I want is a simple way to start a python script with some specific setting (Determined by variables passed from the master script) and be able to kill that script when the master script receives the command to change modes.
Keeping your code modulable is indeed a good practice ! If your code is not Objet oriented, the best way is to create another python file (let's call it util.py) in the same directory as your "main". You can simply include util.py with the following command at the beginning of your main code :
import util
And then when you want to use a function that you've defined in your util.py file, juste use :
util.myFunction(param1, param2,...)
Tried searching for the solution to this problem but due to there being a command Shell=True (don't think that is related to what I'm doing but I could well be wrong) it get's lots of hits that aren't seemingly useful.
Ok so the problem I is basically:
I'm running a Python script on a cluster. On the cluster the normal thing to do is to launch all codes/etc. via a shell script which is used to request the appropriate resources (maximum run time, nodes, processors per node, etc.) needed to run the job. This shell then calls the script and away it goes.
This isn't an issue, but the problem I have is my 'parent' code needs to wait for it's 'children' to run fully (and generate their data to be used by the parent) before continuing. This isn't a problem when I don't have the shell between it and the script but as it stands .communicate() and .wait() are 'satisfied' when the shell script is done. I need to to wait until the script(s) called by the shell are done.
I could botch it by putting a while loop in that needs certain files to exist before breaking, but this seems messy to me.
So my question is, is there a way I can get .communicate (idealy) or .wait or via some other (clean/nice) method to pause the parent code until the shell, and everything called by the shell, finishes running? Ideally (nearly essential tbh) is that this be done in the parent code alone.
I might not be explaining this very well so happy to provide more details if needed, and if somewhere else answers this I'm sorry, just point me thata way!
I'm trying to run an external, separate program from Python. It wouldn't be a problem normally, but the program is a game, and has a Python interpreter built into it. When I use subprocess.Popen, it starts the separate program, but does so under the original program's Python instance, so that they share the first Python console. I can end the first program fine, but I would rather have separate consoles (mainly because I have the console start off hidden, but it gets shown when I start the program from Python with subprocess.POpen).
I would like it if I could start the second program wholly on its own, as though I just 'double-clicked on it'. Also, os.system won't work because I'm aiming for cross-platform compatibility, and that's only available on Windows.
I would like it if I could start the second program wholly on its own, as though I just 'double-clicked on it'.
As of 2.7 and 3.3, Python doesn't have a cross-platform way to do this. A new shutil.open method may be added in the future (possibly not under that name); see http://bugs.python.org/issue3177 for details. But until then, you'll have to write your own code for each platform you care about.
Fortunately, what you're trying to do is simpler and less general than what shutil.open is ultimately hoped to provide, which means it's not that hard to code:
On OS X, there's a command called open that does exactly what you want: "The open command opens a file (or a directory or URL), just as if you had double-clicked the file's icon." So, you can just popen open /Applications/MyGame.app.
On Windows, the equivalent command is start, but unfortunately, that's part of the cmd.exe shell rather than a standalone program. Fortunately, Python comes with a function os.startfile that does the same thing, so just os.startfile(r'C:\Program Files\MyGame\MyGame.exe').
On FreeDesktop-compatible *nix systems (which includes most modern linux distros, etc.), there's a very similar command called xdg-open: "xdg-open opens a file or URL in the user's preferred application." Again, just popen xdg-open /usr/local/bin/mygame.
If you expect to run on other platforms, you'll need to do a bit of research to find the best equivalent. Otherwise, for anything besides Mac and Windows, I'd just try to popen xdg-open, and throw an error if that fails.
See http://pastebin.com/XVp46f7X for an (untested) example.
Note that this will only work to run something that actually can be double-clicked to launch in Finder/Explorer/Nautilus/etc. For example, if you try to launch './script.py', depending on your settings, it may just fire up a text editor with your script in it.
Also, on OS X, you want to run the .app bundle, not the UNIX executable inside it. (In some cases, launching a UNIX executable—whether inside an .app bundle or standalone—may work, but don't count on it.)
Also, keep in mind that launching a program this way is not the same as running it from the command line—in particular, it will inherit its environment, current directory/drive, etc. from the Windows/Launch Services/GNOME/KDE/etc. session, not from your terminal session. If you need more control over the child process, you will need to look at the documentation for open, xdg-open, and os.startfile and/or come up with a different solution.
Finally, just because open/xdg-open/os.startfile succeeds doesn't actually mean that the game started up properly. For example, if it launches and then crashes before it can even create a window, it'll still look like success to you.
You may want to look around PyPI for libraries that do what you want. http://pypi.python.org/pypi/desktop looks like a possibility.
Or you could look through the patches in issue 3177, and pick the one you like best. As far as I know, they're all pure Python, and you can easily just drop the added function in your own module instead of in os or shutil.
As a quick hack, you may be able to (ab)use webbrowser.open. "Note that on some platforms, trying to open a filename using this function, may work and start the operating system’s associated program. However, this is neither supported nor portable." In particular, IIRC, it will not work on OS X 10.5+. However, I believe that making a file: URL out of the filename actually does work on OS X and Windows, and also works on linux for most, but not all, configurations. If so, it may be good enough for a quick&dirty script. Just keep in mind that it's not documented to work, it may break for some of your users, it may break in the future, and it's explicitly considered abuse by the Python developers, so I wouldn't count on it for anything more serious. And it will have the same problems launching 'script.py' or 'Foo.app/Contents/MacOS/foo', passing env variables, etc. as the more correct method above.
Almost everything else in your question is both irrelevant and wrong:
It wouldn't be a problem normally, but the program is a game, and has a Python interpreter built into it.
That doesn't matter. If the game were writing to stdout from C code, it would do the exact same thing.
When I use subprocess.Popen, it starts the separate program, but does so under the original program's Python instance
No it doesn't. It starts an entirely new process, whose embedded Python interpreter is an entirely new instance of Python. You can verify that by, e.g., running a different version of Python than the game embeds.
so that they share the first Python console.
No they don't. They may share the same tty/cmd window, but that's not the same thing.
I can end the first program fine, but I would rather have separate consoles (mainly because I have the console start off hidden, but it gets shown when I start the program from Python with subprocess.POpen).
You could always pipe the child's stdout and stderr to, e.g., a logfile, which you could then view separately from the parent process's output, if you wanted to. But I think this is going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what you actually care about.
Also, os.system won't work because I'm aiming for cross-platform compatibility, and that's only available on Windows.
Wrong; os.system is available on "Unix, Windows"--which is probably everywhere you care about. However, it won't work because it runs the child program in a subshell of your script, using the same tty. (And it's got lots of other problems—e.g., blocking until the child finishes.)
When I use subprocess.Popen, it starts the separate program, but does so under the original program's Python instance...
Incorrect.
... so that they share the first Python console.
This is the crux of your problem. If you want it to run in another console then you must run another console and tell it to run your program instead.
... I'm aiming for cross-platform compatibility ...
Sorry, there's no cross-platform way to do it. You'll need to run the console/terminal appropriate for the platform.