I have a file header which I am reading and planning on writing which contains information about the contents; version information, and other string values.
Writing to the file is not too difficult, it seems pretty straightforward:
outfile.write(struct.pack('<s', "myapp-0.0.1"))
However, when I try reading back the header from the file in another method:
header_version = struct.unpack('<s', infile.read(struct.calcsize('s')))
I have the following error thrown:
struct.error: unpack requires a string argument of length 2
How do I fix this error and what exactly is failing?
Writing to the file is not too difficult, it seems pretty straightforward:
Not quite as straightforward as you think. Try looking at what's in the file, or just printing out what you're writing:
>>> struct.pack('<s', 'myapp-0.0.1')
'm'
As the docs explain:
For the 's' format character, the count is interpreted as the size of the string, not a repeat count like for the other format characters; for example, '10s' means a single 10-byte string, while '10c' means 10 characters. If a count is not given, it defaults to 1.
So, how do you deal with this?
Don't use struct if it's not what you want. The main reason to use struct is to interact with C code that dumps C struct objects directly to/from a buffer/file/socket/whatever, or a binary format spec written in a similar style (e.g. IP headers). It's not meant for general serialization of Python data. As Jon Clements points out in a comment, if all you want to store is a string, just write the string as-is. If you want to store something more complex, consider the json module; if you want something even more flexible and powerful, use pickle.
Use fixed-length strings. If part of your file format spec is that the name must always be 255 characters or less, just write '<255s'. Shorter strings will be padded, longer strings will be truncated (you might want to throw in a check for that to raise an exception instead of silently truncating).
Use some in-band or out-of-band means of passing along the length. The most common is a length prefix. (You may be able to use the 'p' or 'P' formats to help, but it really depends on the C layout/binary format you're trying to match; often you have to do something ugly like struct.pack('<h{}s'.format(len(name)), len(name), name).)
As for why your code is failing, there are multiple reasons. First, read(11) isn't guaranteed to read 11 characters. If there's only 1 character in the file, that's all you'll get. Second, you're not actually calling read(11), you're calling read(1), because struct.calcsize('s') returns 1 (for reasons which should be obvious from the above). Third, either your code isn't exactly what you've shown above, or infile's file pointer isn't at the right place, because that code as written will successfully read in the string 'm' and unpack it as 'm'. (I'm assuming Python 2.x here; 3.x will have more problems, but you wouldn't have even gotten that far.)
For your specific use case ("file header… which contains information about the contents; version information, and other string values"), I'd just use write the strings with newline terminators. (If the strings can have embedded newlines, you could backslash-escape them into \n, use C-style or RFC822-style continuations, quote them, etc.)
This has a number of advantages. For one thing, it makes the format trivially human-readable (and human-editable/-debuggable). And, while sometimes that comes with a space tradeoff, a single-character terminator is at least as efficient, possibly more so, than a length-prefix format would be. And, last but certainly not least, it means the code is dead-simple for both generating and parsing headers.
In a later comment you clarify that you also want to write ints, but that doesn't change anything. A 'i' int value will take 4 bytes, but most apps write a lot of small numbers, which only take 1-2 bytes (+1 for a terminator/separator) if you write them as strings. And if you're not writing small numbers, a Python int can easily be too large to fit in a C int—in which case struct will silently overflow and just write the low 32 bits.
Related
I have a comprehension question not related to any particular language, but since I am writing in python, I tagged python. I am asked to provide some data in "fixed length, flatfile without separators". It confuses me, since I understand it like:
Input: Column A: date (len6)
Input: Column B: name (len20)
Output: "20170409MYVERYSHORTNAME[space][space][space][space][space]"
"MYVERYSHORTNAME" is only 15 char long, but since it's fixed 20-length output, I am supposed to fill 5 times it with something ? It's not specified.
Why do someone even needs a file without separators? He/she will need to break it down to separated fields anyway, what's the point?
This kind of flat (binary) file is meant to be faster/easier to read by machines, and more memory efficient than the equivalent in a more human friendly representation (eg, JSON, CSV, etc.). For example, the machine can preallocate the appropriate amount of memory before reading the contents.
Nowadays, with the virtually unlimited quantity of RAM and dynamic nature of the languages, nobody uses flat files anymore (unless it is specifically needed).
In Python, in order to deal properly with this kind of binary files, you can for example use the struct module from the standard library:
https://docs.python.org/3.6/library/struct.html#module-struct
Example:
import struct
from datetime import datetime
mydate = datetime.now()
myshortname = "HelloWorld!"
struct.pack("8s20s", mydate.strftime('%Y%m%d').encode(), myshortname.encode())
>>> b'201709HelloWorld!\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00'
Typically, when you see fixed-length files, you're dealing with legacy systems. The AS400, for instance, usually spits out fixed-length files with artificial separators (why, I don't know, but that's what I've seen).
Usually, strings are right-padded with spaces, and numbers are left-padded with 0's (zeros).
This is not absolute.
I would like to use re module with streams, but not necessarily file streams, at minimal development cost.
For file streams, there's mmap module that is able to impersonate a string and as such can be used freely with re.
Now I wonder how mmap manages to craft an object that re can further reuse. If I just pass whatever, re protect itself against usage of too incompatible objects with TypeError: expected string or bytes-like object. So I thought I'd create a class that derives from string or bytes and override a few methods such as __getitem__ etc. (this intuitively fits the duck typing philosophy of Python), and make them interact with my original stream. However, this doesn't seem to work at all - my overrides are completely ignored.
Is it possible to create such a "lazy" string in pure Python, without C extensions? If so, how?
A bit of background to disregard alternative solutions:
Can't use mmap (the stream contents are not a file)
Can't dump the whole thing to the HDD (too slow)
Can't load the whole thing to the memory (too large)
Can seek, know the size and compute the content at runtime
Example code that demonstrates bytes resistance to modification:
class FancyWrapper(bytes):
def __init__(self, base_str):
pass #super() isn't called and yet the code below finds abc, aaa and bbb
print(re.findall(b'[abc]{3}', FancyWrapper(b'abc aaa bbb def')))
Well, I found out that it's not possible, not currently.
Python's re module internally operates on the strings in the sense that it scans through a plain C buffer, which requires the object it receives to satisfy these properties:
Their representation must reside in the system memory,
Their representation must be linear, e.g. it cannot contain gaps of any sort,
Their representation must contain the content we're searching in as a whole.
So even if we managed to make re work with something else than bytes or string, we'd have to use mmap-like behavior, i.e. impersonate our content provider as linear region in the system memory.
But the mmap mechanism will work only for files, and in fact, even this is also pretty limited. For example, one can't mmap a large file if one tries to write to it, as per this answer.
Even the regex module, which contains many super duper additions such as (?r), doesn't accommodate for content sources outside string and bytes.
For completeness: does this mean we're screwed and can't scan through large dynamic content with re? Not necessarily. There's a way to do it, if we permit a limit on max match size. The solution is inspired by cfi's comment, and extends it to binary files.
Let n = max match size.
Start a search at position x
While there's content:
Navigate to position x
Read 2*n bytes to scan buffer
Find the first match within scan buffer
If match was found:
Let x = x + match_pos + match_size
Notify about the match_pos and match_size
If match wasn't found:
Let x = x + n
What this accomplishes by using twice as big buffer as the max match size? Imagine the user searches for A{3} and the max match size is set to 3. If we'd read just max match size bytes to the scan buffer and the data at current x contained AABBBA:
This iteration would look at AAB. No match.
The next iteration would move the pointer to x+3.
Now the scan buffer would look like this: BBA. Still no match.
This is obviously bad, and the simple solution is to read twice as many bytes as we jump over, to ensure the anomaly near the scan buffer's tail is resolved.
Note that the short-circuiting on the first match within the scan buffer is supposed to protect against other anomalies such as buffer underscans. It could probably be tweaked to minimize reads for scan buffers that contain multiple matches, but I wanted to avoid further complicating things.
This probably isn't the most performant algorithm made, but is good enough for my use case, so I'm leaving it here.
Given two nearly identical text files (plain text, created in MacVim), I get different results when reading them into a variable in Python. I want to know why this is and how I can produce consistent behavior.
For example, f1.txt looks like this:
This isn't a great example, but it works.
And f2.txt looks like this:
This isn't a great example, but it wasn't meant to be.
"But doesn't it demonstrate the problem?," she said.
When I read these files in, using something like the following:
f = open("f1.txt","r")
x = f.read()
I get the following when I look at the variables in the console. f1.txt:
>>> x
"This isn't a great example, but it works.\n\n"
And f2.txt:
>>> y
'This isn\'t a great example, but it wasn\'t meant to be. \n"But doesn\'t it demonstrate the problem?," she said.\n\n'
In other words, f1 comes in with only escaped newlines, while f2 also has its single quotes escaped.
repr() shows what's going on. first for f1:
>>> repr(x)
'"This isn\'t a great example, but it works.\\n\\n"'
And f2:
>>> repr(y)
'\'This isn\\\'t a great example, but it wasn\\\'t meant to be. \\n"But doesn\\\'t it demonstrate the problem?," she said.\\n\\n\''
This kind of behavior is driving me crazy. What's going on and how do I make it consistent? If it matters, I'm trying to read in plain text, manipulate it, and eventually write it out so that it shows the properly escaped characters (for pasting into Javascript code).
Python is giving you a string literal which, if you gave it back to Python, would result in the same string. This is known as the repr() (short for "representation") of the string. This may not (probably won't, in fact) match the string as it was originally specified, since there are so many ways to do that, and Python does not record anything about how it was originally specified.
It uses double quotes around your first example, which works fine because it doesn't contain any double quotes. The second string contains double quotes, so it can't use double quotes as a delimiter. Instead it uses single quotes and uses backslashes to escape the single quotes in the string (it doesn't have to escape the double quotes this way, and there are more of them than there are single quotes). This keeps the representation as short as possible.
There is no reason for this behavior to drive you crazy and no need to try to make it consistent. You only get the repr() of a string when you are peeking at values in Python's interactive mode. When you actually print or otherwise use the string, you get the string itself, not a reconstituted string literal.
If you want to get a JavaScript string literal, the easiest way is to use the json module:
import json
print json.dumps('I said, "Hello, world!"')
Both f1 and f2 contain perfectly normal, unescaped single quotes.
The fact that their repr looks different is meaningless.
There are a variety of different ways to represent the same string. For example, these are all equivalent literals:
"abc'def'ghi"
'abc\'def\'ghi'
'''abc'def'ghi'''
r"abc'def'ghi"
The repr function on a string always just generates some literal that is a valid representation of that string, but you shouldn't depend on exactly which one it generate. (In fact, you should rarely use it for anything but debugging purposes in the first place.)
Since the language doesn't define anywhere what algorithm it uses to generate a repr, it could be different for each version of each implementation.
Most of them will try to be clever, using single or double quotes to avoid as many escaped internal quotes as possible, but even that isn't guaranteed. If you really want to know the algorithm for a particular implementation and version, you pretty much have to look at the source. For example, in CPython 3.3, inside unicode_repr, it counts the number of quotes of each type; then if there are single quotes but no double quotes, it uses " instead of '.
If you want "the" representation of a string, you're out of luck, because there is no such thing. But if you want some particular representation of a string, that's no problem. You just have to know what format you want; most formats, someone's already written the code, and often it's in the standard library. You can make C literal strings, JSON-encoded strings, strings that can fit into ASCII RFC822 headers… But all of those formats have different rules from each other (and from Python literals), so you have to use the right function for the job.
Conclusion: It's impossible to override or disable Python's built-in escape sequence processing, such that, you can skip using the raw prefix specifier. I dug into Python's internals to figure this out. So if anyone tries designing objects that work on complex strings (like regex) as part of some kind of framework, make sure to specify in the docstrings that string arguments to the object's __init__() MUST include the r prefix!
Original question: I am finding it a bit difficult to force Python to not "change" anything about a user-inputted string, which may contain among other things, regex or escaped hexadecimal sequences. I've already tried various combinations of raw strings, .encode('string-escape') (and its decode counterpart), but I can't find the right approach.
Given an escaped, hexadecimal representation of the Documentation IPv6 address 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334, using .encode(), this small script (called x.py):
#!/usr/bin/env python
class foo(object):
__slots__ = ("_bar",)
def __init__(self, input):
if input is not None:
self._bar = input.encode('string-escape')
else:
self._bar = "qux?"
def _get_bar(self): return self._bar
bar = property(_get_bar)
#
x = foo("\x20\x01\x0d\xb8\x85\xa3\x00\x00\x00\x00\x8a\x2e\x03\x70\x73\x34")
print x.bar
Will yield the following output when executed:
$ ./x.py
\x01\r\xb8\x85\xa3\x00\x00\x00\x00\x8a.\x03ps4
Note the \x20 got converted to an ASCII space character, along with a few others. This is basically correct due to Python processing the escaped hex sequences and converting them to their printable ASCII values.
This can be solved if the initializer to foo() was treated as a raw string (and the .encode() call removed), like this:
x = foo(r"\x20\x01\x0d\xb8\x85\xa3\x00\x00\x00\x00\x8a\x2e\x03\x70\x73\x34")
However, my end goal is to create a kind of framework that can be used and I want to hide these kinds of "implementation details" from the end user. If they called foo() with the above IPv6 address in escaped hexadecimal form (without the raw specifier) and immediately print it back out, they should get back exactly what they put in w/o knowing or using the raw specifier. So I need to find a way to have foo's __init__() do whatever processing is necessary to enable that.
Edit: Per this SO question, it seems it's a defect of Python, in that it always performs some kind of escape sequence processing. There does not appear to be any kind of facility to completely turn off escape sequence processing, even temporarily. Sucks. I guess I am going to have to research subclassing str to create something like rawstr that intelligently determines what escape sequences Python processed in a string, and convert them back to their original format. This is not going to be fun...
Edit2: Another example, given the sample regex below:
"^.{0}\xcb\x00\x71[\x00-\xff]"
If I assign this to a var or pass it to a function without using the raw specifier, the \x71 gets converted to the letter q. Even if I add .encode('string-escape') or .replace('\\', '\\\\'), the escape sequences are still processed. thus resulting in this output:
"^.{0}\xcb\x00q[\x00-\xff]"
How can I stop this, again, without using the raw specifier? Is there some way to "turn off" the escape sequence processing or "revert" it after the fact thus that the q turns back into \x71? Is there a way to process the string and escape the backslashes before the escape sequence processing happens?
I think you have an understandable confusion about a difference between Python string literals (source code representation), Python string objects in memory, and how that objects can be printed (in what format they can be represented in the output).
If you read some bytes from a file into a bytestring you can write them back as is.
r"" exists only in source code there is no such thing at runtime i.e., r"\x" and "\\x" are equal, they may even be the exact same string object in memory.
To see that input is not corrupted, you could print each byte as an integer:
print " ".join(map(ord, raw_input("input something")))
Or just echo as is (there could be a difference but it is unrelated to your "string-escape" issue):
print raw_input("input something")
Identity function:
def identity(obj):
return obj
If you do nothing to the string then your users will receive the exact same object back. You can provide examples in the docs what you consider a concise readable way to represent input string as Python literals. If you find confusing to work with binary strings such as "\x20\x01" then you could accept ascii hex-representation instead: "2001" (you could use binascii.hexlify/unhexlify to convert one to another).
The regex case is more complex because there are two languages:
Escapes sequences are interpreted by Python according to its string literal syntax
Regex engine interprets the string object as a regex pattern that also has its own escape sequences
I think you will have to go the join route.
Here's an example:
>>> m = {chr(c): '\\x{0}'.format(hex(c)[2:].zfill(2)) for c in xrange(0,256)}
>>>
>>> x = "\x20\x01\x0d\xb8\x85\xa3\x00\x00\x00\x00\x8a\x2e\x03\x70\x73\x34"
>>> print ''.join(map(m.get, x))
\x20\x01\x0d\xb8\x85\xa3\x00\x00\x00\x00\x8a\x2e\x03\x70\x73\x34
I'm not entirely sure why you need that though. If your code needs to interact with other pieces of code, I'd suggest that you agree on a defined format, and stick to it.
I am trying to write a small Python 2.x API to support fetching a
job by jobNumber, where jobNumber is provided as an integer.
Sometimes the users provide ajobNumber as an integer literal
beginning with 0, e.g. 037537. (This is because they have been
coddled by R, a language that sanely considers 037537==37537.)
Python, however, considers integer literals starting with "0" to
be OCTAL, thus 037537!=37537, instead 037537==16223. This
strikes me as a blatant affront to the principle of least
surprise, and thankfully it looks like this was fixed in Python
3---see PEP 3127.
But I'm stuck with Python 2.7 at the moment. So my users do this:
>>> fetchJob(037537)
and silently get the wrong job (16223), or this:
>>> fetchJob(038537)
File "<stdin>", line 1
fetchJob(038537)
^
SyntaxError: invalid token
where Python is rejecting the octal-incompatible digit.
There doesn't seem to be anything provided via __future__ to
allow me to get the Py3K behavior---it would have to be built-in
to Python in some manner, since it requires a change to the lexer
at least.
Is anyone aware of how I could protect my users from getting the
wrong job in cases like this? At the moment the best I can think
of is to change that API so it take a string instead of an int.
At the moment the best I can think of is to change that API so it take a string instead of an int.
Yes, and I think this is a reasonable option given the situation.
Another option would be to make sure that all your job numbers contain at least one digit greater than 7 so that adding the leading zero will give an error immediately instead of an incorrect result, but that seems like a bigger hack than using strings.
A final option could be to educate your users. It will only take five minutes or so to explain not to add the leading zero and what can happen if you do. Even if they forget or accidentally add the zero due to old habits, they are more likely to spot the problem if they have heard of it before.
Perhaps you could take the input as a string, strip leading zeros, then convert back to an int?
test = "001234505"
test = int(test.lstrip("0")) # 1234505