Develop Reference

(Python) Monkeypatch __new__ for objects of type int, float, str, list, dict, set, and module in python

I want to implicitly extend the int, float, str, list, dict, set, and module classes with custom built substitutions (extensions).
When I say 'implicitly', what I mean is that when I declare 'a = 1', and object of the type Custom_Int (as an example) is produced, as opposed to a normal integer object.
Now, I understand and respect the reasons not to do this. Firstly- messing with built-ins is like messing with the laws of physics. No good can come from it. That said- I do understand the gravity of what I'm trying to do and what can happen if I do it wrong.
Second- I understand that modifying a base case will effect not just the current run-time but all running python processes. I feel that by overriding the __new__ method of these base classes, such that it returns Custom_Object_Whatever if and ONLY IF certain environmental factors are true, other run times will remain largely unaffected.
So, getting back to the issue at hand- how can I override the __new__ method of these various types?
Pythons forbiddenfruit package seems to be promising. I havn't had a chance to reeeeeeally investigate it though, and if someone who understands it could summarize what it does, that would save me a lot of time.
Beyond that, I've observed something strange.
Every answer to monkeypatching that doesn't eventually circle back to forbiddenfruit or how forbiddenfruit works has to do with modifying what I will refer to as the 'absolute_dictionary' of the class. Because everything in Python is essentially a mapping (or dictionary) of functions/values to names, if you change the name __new__ within the right mapping, you change the nature of the object.
Problem is- every near-success I've had has it that if I call 'str( 'a' ).__new__( *args )' it works fine {in some cases}, but the calling of varOne = 'a' does not seem to actually call str.__new__().
My guess- this has something to do with either python's parsing of a program prior to launch, or else the caching of the various classes during/post launch. Or maybe I'm totally off the mark. Either python pre-reads and applies some regex to it's modules prior to launch or else the machine code, when it attempts to implicitly create an object, it reaches for something other than the class located in moduleObject.builtins[ __classname__ ]
Any ideas?

If you want to do this, your best option is probably to modify the CPython source code and build your own custom Python build with your extensions baked into the actual built-in types. The result will integrate a lot better with all the low-level mechanisms you don't yet understand, and you'll learn a lot in the process.
Right now, you're getting blocked by a lot of factors. Here are the ones that have come to my mind.
The first is that most ways of creating built-in objects don't go through a __new__ method at all. They go through C-level calls like PyLong_FromLong or PyList_New. These calls are hardwired to use the actual built-in types, allocating memory sized for the real built-in types, fetching the type object by the address of its statically-allocated C struct, and stuff like that. It's basically impossible to change any of this without building your own custom Python.
The second factor is that messing with __new__ isn't even enough to correctly affect things that theoretically should go through __new__, like int("5"). Python has reasons for stopping you from setting attributes on built-in classes, and two of those reasons are slots and the type attribute cache.
Slots are a public part of the C API that you'll probably learn about if you try to modify the CPython source code. They're function pointers in the C structs that make up type objects at C level, and most of them correspond to Python-level magic methods. For example, the __new__ method has a corresponding tp_new slot. Most C code accesses slots instead of methods, and there's code to ensure the slots and methods are in sync, but if you bypass Python's protections, that breaks and everything goes to heck.
The type attribute cache isn't a public part of anything even at C level. It's a cache that saves the results of type object attribute lookups, to make Python go faster. Its memory safety relies on all type object attribute modification going through type.__setattr__ (and all built-in type object attribute modification getting rejected by type.__setattr__), but if you bypass the protection, memory safety goes out the window and arbitrarily weird results can occur.
The third factor is that there's a bunch of caching for immutable objects. The small int cache, the interned string dict, constants getting saved in bytecode objects, compile-time constant folding... there's a lot. Objects aren't going to be created when you expect. (There's also stuff like, say, zip saving the last output tuple and reusing it if it sees you didn't keep a reference, for even more ways object creation will mess with your assumptions.)
There's more. Stuff like, what argument would int.__new__ even take if you tried to use int.__new__ to evaluate the expression 5? Stuff like all the low-level code that knows exactly how to work with the types it expects and will get very confused if it gets a MyCustomTuple with a completely different memory layout from a real tuple. Screwing with built-ins has a lot of issues.
Incidentally, one of the things you expected to be a problem is mostly not a problem. Screwing with one Python process's built-ins won't affect other Python processes' built-ins... unless those other processes are created by forking the first process, such as with multiprocessing in fork mode.

win32com COM method call returning name of object's type instead of object

My company has an internal C# library that I'm trying to call from CPython 2.7 using win32com. We have an object which I'll call Type1, which is in a C# namespace that I'll call Company.System.SubSystem1. One particular method of this object (let's call it GetCurrentType2Object) returns an object of type Company.System.SubSystem2.Type2. The code I have is as follows:
import win32com.client
type1_object = win32com.client.Dispatch("Company.System.SubSystem1.Type1")
type2_object = type1_object.GetCurrentType2Object()
The problem is that type2_object does not get assigned a Type2 object; it gets the string "Company.System.SubSystem2.Type2".
There are other methods on the same object that return void, integers, or enum values, and those all appear to succeed. There is no other method that returns a class type for me to try, this is the only one.
I've tried using the makepy.py script on the library in question before running my code, and it has its own problems before even getting this far; the generated file seems to contain a small subset of the actual interface, which does not include many of the methods I need. The Microsoft COM object viewer shows the same subset, so I can't blame this on the script, and I gave up trying to figure it out.
I'm aware of IronPython, and I may very well end up just using it instead, since that would be a much less roundabout way of working with .NET code, but I would really like to understand what's happening here before I make any decisions, and just to satisfy my own curiosity.

It appears what may be happening is that win32com.client.dynamic is deciding that the method I'm trying to call is actually a property, and so the method doesn't get invoked correctly. I'm not certain because I don't really understand how that decision is made, but I was able to work around the problem by forcing a method to be generated instead of a property. You can do that by calling win32com's _FlagAsMethod. For the example in the question, that would look like:
type1_object._FlagAsMethod("GetCurrentType2Object")
Do that before trying to call GetCurrentType2Object and everything works fine.

Safety of Python 'eval' For List Deserialization

Are there any security exploits that could occur in this scenario:
eval(repr(unsanitized_user_input), {"__builtins__": None}, {"True":True, "False":False})
where unsanitized_user_input is a str object. The string is user-generated and could be nasty. Assuming our web framework hasn't failed us, it's a real honest-to-god str instance from the Python builtins.
If this is dangerous, can we do anything to the input to make it safe?
We definitely don't want to execute anything contained in the string.
See also:
Funny blog post about eval safety
Previous Question
Blog: Fast deserialization in Python
The larger context which is (I believe) not essential to the question is that we have thousands of these:
repr([unsanitized_user_input_1,
unsanitized_user_input_2,
unsanitized_user_input_3,
unsanitized_user_input_4,
...])
in some cases nested:
repr([[unsanitized_user_input_1,
unsanitized_user_input_2],
[unsanitized_user_input_3,
unsanitized_user_input_4],
...])
which are themselves converted to strings with repr(), put in persistent storage, and eventually read back into memory with eval.
Eval deserialized the strings from persistent storage much faster than pickle and simplejson. The interpreter is Python 2.5 so json and ast aren't available. No C modules are allowed and cPickle is not allowed.

It is indeed dangerous and the safest alternative is ast.literal_eval (see the ast module in the standard library). You can of course build and alter an ast to provide e.g. evaluation of variables and the like before you eval the resulting AST (when it's down to literals).
The possible exploit of eval starts with any object it can get its hands on (say True here) and going via .__class_ to its type object, etc. up to object, then gets its subclasses... basically it can get to ANY object type and wreck havoc. I can be more specific but I'd rather not do it in a public forum (the exploit is well known, but considering how many people still ignore it, revealing it to wannabe script kiddies could make things worse... just avoid eval on unsanitized user input and live happily ever after!-).

If you can prove beyond doubt that unsanitized_user_input is a str instance from the Python built-ins with nothing tampered, then this is always safe. In fact, it'll be safe even without all those extra arguments since eval(repr(astr)) = astr for all such string objects. You put in a string, you get back out a string. All you did was escape and unescape it.
This all leads me to think that eval(repr(x)) isn't what you want--no code will ever be executed unless someone gives you an unsanitized_user_input object that looks like a string but isn't, but that's a different question--unless you're trying to copy a string instance in the slowest way possible :D.

With everything as you describe, it is technically safe to eval repred strings, however, I'd avoid doing it anyway as it's asking for trouble:
There could be some weird corner-case where your assumption that only repred strings are stored (eg. a bug / different pathway into the storage that doesn't repr instantly becmes a code injection exploit where it might otherwise be unexploitable)
Even if everything is OK now, assumptions might change at some point, and unsanitised data may get stored in that field by someone unaware of the eval code.
Your code may get reused (or worse, copy+pasted) into a situation you didn't consider.
As Alex Martelli pointed out, in python2.6 and higher, there is ast.literal_eval which will safely handle both strings and other simple datatypes like tuples. This is probably the safest and most complete solution.
Another possibility however is to use the string-escape codec. This is much faster than eval (about 10 times according to timeit), available in earlier versions than literal_eval, and should do what you want:
>>> s = 'he\nllo\' wo"rld\0\x03\r\n\tabc'
>>> repr(s)[1:-1].decode('string-escape') == s
True
(The [1:-1] is to strip the outer quotes repr adds.)

Generally, you should never allow anyone to post code.
So called "paid professional programmers" have a hard-enough time writing code that actually works.
Accepting code from the anonymous public -- without benefit of formal QA -- is the worst of all possible scenarios.
Professional programmers -- without good, solid formal QA -- will make a hash of almost any web site. Indeed, I'm reverse engineering some unbelievably bad code from paid professionals.
The idea of allowing a non-professional -- unencumbered by QA -- to post code is truly terrifying.

repr([unsanitized_user_input_1,
unsanitized_user_input_2,
...
... unsanitized_user_input is a str object
You shouldn't have to serialise strings to store them in a database..
If these are all strings, as you mentioned - why can't you just store the strings in a db.StringListProperty?
The nested entries might be a bit more complicated, but why is this the case? When you have to resort to eval to get data from the database, you're probably doing something wrong..
Couldn't you store each unsanitized_user_input_x as it's own db.StringProperty row, and have group them by an reference field?
Either of those may not be applicable, since I've no idea what you're trying to achieve, but my point is - can you not structure the data in a way you where don't have to rely on eval (and also rely on it not being a security issue)?

Swig / Python memory leak detected

I have a very complicated class for which I'm attempting to make Python wrappers in SWIG. When I create an instance of the item in Python, however, I'm unable to initialize certain data members without receiving the message:
>>> myVar = myModule.myDataType()
swig/python detected a memory leak of type 'MyDataType *', no destructor found.
Does anyone know what I need to do to address this? Is there a flag I could be using to generate destructors?

SWIG always generates destructor wrappers (unless %nodefaultdtor directive is used). However, in case where it doesn't know anything about a type, it will generate an opaque pointer wrapper, which will cause leaks (and the above message).
Please check that myDataType is a type that is known by SWIG. Re-run SWIG with debug messages turned on and check for any messages similar to
Nothing is known about Foo base type - Bar. Ignored
Receiving a message as above means that SWIG doesn't know your type hierarchy to the full extent and thus operates on limited information - which could cause it to not generate a dtor.

The error message is pretty clear to me, you need to define a destructor for this type.

How do I dump an entire Python process for later debugging inspection?

I have a Python application in a strange state. I don't want to do live debugging of the process. Can I dump it to a file and examine its state later? I know I've restored corefiles of C programs in gdb later, but I don't know how to examine a Python application in a useful way from gdb.
(This is a variation on my question about debugging memleaks in a production system.)

There is no builtin way other than aborting (with os.abort(), causing the coredump if resource limits allow it) -- although you can certainly build your own 'dump' function that dumps relevant information about the data you care about. There are no ready-made tools for it.
As for handling the corefile of a Python process, the Python source has a gdbinit file that contains useful macros. It's still a lot more painful than somehow getting into the process itself (with pdb or the interactive interpreter) but it makes life a little easier.

If you only care about storing the traceback object (which is all you need to start a debugging session), you can use debuglater (a fork of pydump). It works with recent versions of Python and has a IPython/Jupyter integration.
If you want to store the entire session, look at dill. It has a dump_session, and load_session functions.
Here are two other relevant projects:
python-checkpointing2
pycrunch-trace
If you're looking for a language agnostic solution, you want to create a core dump file. Here's an example with Python.

Someone above said that there is no builtin way to perform this, but that's not entirely true. For an example, you could take a look at the pylons debugging tools. Whene there is an exception, the exception handler saves the stack trace and prints a URL on the console that can be used to retrieve the debugging session over HTTP.
While they're probably keeping these sessions in memory, they're just python objects, so there's nothing to stop you from pickling a stack dump and restoring it later for inspection. It would mean some changes to the app, but it should be possible...
After some research, it turns out the relevant code is actually coming from Paste's EvalException module. You should be able to look there to figure out what you need.

It's also possible to write something that would dump all the data from the process, e.g.
Pickler that ignores the objects it can't pickle (replacing them with something else) (e.g. Python: Pickling a dict with some unpicklable items)
Method that recursively converts everything into serializable stuff (e.g. this, except it needs a check for infinitely recursing objects and do something with those; also it could try dir() and getattr() to process some of the unknown objects, e.g. extension classes).
But leaving a running process with manhole or pylons or something like that certainly seems more convenient when possible.
(also, I wonder if something more convenient was written since this question was first asked)

This answer suggests making your program core dump and then continuing execution on another sufficiently similar box.