Develop Reference

Export decorator that manages __all__

A proper Python module will list all its public symbols in a list called __all__. Managing that list can be tedious, since you'll have to list each symbol twice. Surely there are better ways, probably using decorators so one would merely annotate the exported symbols as #export.
How would you write such a decorator? I'm certain there are different ways, so I'd like to see several answers with enough information that users can compare the approaches against one another.

In Is it a good practice to add names to __all__ using a decorator?, Ed L suggests the following, to be included in some utility library:
import sys
def export(fn):
"""Use a decorator to avoid retyping function/class names.
* Based on an idea by Duncan Booth:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/11cbb03e09611b8a
* Improved via a suggestion by Dave Angel:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/3d400fb22d8a42e1
"""
mod = sys.modules[fn.__module__]
if hasattr(mod, '__all__'):
name = fn.__name__
all_ = mod.__all__
if name not in all_:
all_.append(name)
else:
mod.__all__ = [fn.__name__]
return fn
We've adapted the name to match the other examples. With this in a local utility library, you'd simply write
from .utility import export
and then start using #export. Just one line of idiomatic Python, you can't get much simpler than this. On the downside, the module does require access to the module by using the __module__ property and the sys.modules cache, both of which may be problematic in some of the more esoteric setups (like custom import machinery, or wrapping functions from another module to create functions in this module).
The python part of the atpublic package by Barry Warsaw does something similar to this. It offers some keyword-based syntax, too, but the decorator variant relies on the same patterns used above.
This great answer by Aaron Hall suggests something very similar, with two more lines of code as it doesn't use __dict__.setdefault. It might be preferable if manipulating the module __dict__ is problematic for some reason.

You could simply declare the decorator at the module level like this:
__all__ = []
def export(obj):
__all__.append(obj.__name__)
return obj
This is perfect if you only use this in a single module. At 4 lines of code (plus probably some empty lines for typical formatting practices) it's not overly expensive to repeat this in different modules, but it does feel like code duplication in those cases.

You could define the following in some utility library:
def exporter():
all = []
def decorator(obj):
all.append(obj.__name__)
return obj
return decorator, all
export, __all__ = exporter()
export(exporter)
# possibly some other utilities, decorated with #export as well
Then inside your public library you'd do something like this:
from . import utility
export, __all__ = utility.exporter()
# start using #export
Using the library takes two lines of code here. It combines the definition of __all__ and the decorator. So people searching for one of them will find the other, thus helping readers to quickly understand your code. The above will also work in exotic environments, where the module may not be available from the sys.modules cache or where the __module__ property has been tampered with or some such.

https://github.com/russianidiot/public.py has yet another implementation of such a decorator. Its core file is currently 160 lines long! The crucial points appear to be the fact that it uses the inspect module to obtain the appropriate module based on the current call stack.

This is not a decorator approach, but provides the level of efficiency I think you're after.
https://pypi.org/project/auto-all/
You can use the two functions provided with the package to "start" and "end" capturing the module objects that you want included in the __all__ variable.
from auto_all import start_all, end_all
# Imports outside the start and end functions won't be externally availab;e.
from pathlib import Path
def a_private_function():
print("This is a private function.")
# Start defining externally accessible objects
start_all(globals())
def a_public_function():
print("This is a public function.")
# Stop defining externally accessible objects
end_all(globals())
The functions in the package are trivial (a few lines), so could be copied into your code if you want to avoid external dependencies.

While other variants are technically correct to a certain extent, one might also be sure that:
if the target module already has __all__ declared, it is handled correctly;
target appears in __all__ only once:
# utils.py
import sys
from typing import Any
def export(target: Any) -> Any:
"""
Mark a module-level object as exported.
Simplifies tracking of objects available via wildcard imports.
"""
mod = sys.modules[target.__module__]
__all__ = getattr(mod, '__all__', None)
if __all__ is None:
__all__ = []
setattr(mod, '__all__', __all__)
elif not isinstance(__all__, list):
__all__ = list(__all__)
setattr(mod, '__all__', __all__)
target_name = target.__name__
if target_name not in __all__:
__all__.append(target_name)
return target

Easiest way to share variables among files in Python?

I have a project with many Python files. There are certain number of variables in some files which I like to use in other files. For example, if
var=10
is defined in f1.py, what are the ways I can call/use "var" in other files without using from f1 import var ?
I tried using global but it doesn't work across all the files.
Thank you!

Declare all of your global variables in one file i.e. my_settings.py and then import that in your other scripts.
See this question and it's accepted answer for details:
Using global variables between files in Python

You could do it with namescope:
import f1
print(f1.var)
10
f1.var = 20
Then it should change var in all files which are using that variable with import.

Most of the times I encounter this problem I use different methods:
I put all constants that are to be used in all programs in a separate program that can be imported.
I create a "shared variables object" for variables that are to be used in several modules. This object is passed to the constructor of a class. The variables can then be accessed (and modified) in the class that is using them.
So when the program starts this class is instantiated and after that passed to the different modules. This also makes it flexible in that when you add an extra field to the class, no parameters need to be changed.
class session_info:
def __init__(self, shared_field1=None, shared_field2=None ....):
self.shared_field1 = shared_field1
self.shared_field2 = shared_field2
def function1(session):
session.shared_field1 = 'stilton'
def function2(session):
print('%s is very runny sir' % session.shared_field1)
session = session_info()
function1(session)
function2(session)
Should print:
"stilton is very runny sir"

Accessing class instance from another module (Python)

I'm pretty new to Python as to OOP in general which is probably be the reason that I can't figure out the following:
I'm writing a python script which opens a text file and subsequently translates it into HTML, maintaining it's "own" mirrored directory-trees for the edit files and the html files.
Since directory creation and deletion is done automatically depending on, among other criteria, whether the file existed before or not, I need some kind of automatic and dynamic path adjustment. The script has to do several checks for files and associated directories before it can set the corresponding paths and start the processing.
I decided to put most of the more general functions (check file existence, show dialogs for duplicate filenames if found, etc) in a separate module, since they are quite specific and not depending on any state. Actually they create the state (path variables), so a class would not make sense if this is not a misconception.
On the other hand I'm using a class for the pure getting and setting the paths since I need the paths accessible from every module, so it's basically a global access point for paths.
This class is instantiated in the main module.
Now my problem is that I can't figure out how to manipulate the paths (using the path
setters) of that instance in the main module from a function inside the tools module. Importing the class instance or the main module into the tools module doesn't seem to work.
Generally speaking, is it possible to use a class instance across all module files and is this the way to go, or am I missing the point somehow?
I paste the relevant bits of code for illustration:
Setter/Getter class inside the main module
class SetEnv():
def __init__(self):
pass
def set_path_srcfile(self, path_srcfile):
self.path_srcfile = path_srcfile
def set_path_htmlfile(self):
self.path_htmlfile = self.path_srcfile.replace('source', 'html', 1).replace('.txt', '.html', 1)
def get_path_srcfile(self):
return self.path_srcfile
def get_path_htmlfile(self):
return self.path_htmlfile
Later in main_module:
env = SetEnv()
Part of tools module (inside a def acting upon user input):
import main_module as mm
path_srcfile = dict[int(user_option)][1] # dictionary holding the path we want to set
mm.env.set_path_srcfile(path_srcfile)
mm.env.set_path_htmlfile()

I might be misinterpreting your question, correct me if I am. As I understand it, you are using one single instance of a SetEnv object across an entire project to store and modify some path configuration.
If you really want a singleton like settings object, then use a module instead of a class.
# env.py
_src = ''
_html = ''
def set_path_srcfile(path_srcfile):
global _src
_src = path_srcfile
def get_path_srcfile():
return _src
...
Then everywhere you need it you can use import env; env.set_path_srcfile(myfile) and know that all other functions / modules / classes will be aware of the update.
If you don't want a singleton, then making a settings object available in the main module somewhere (as you have done) is a fine solution.

Python namespaces: How to make unique objects accessible in other modules?

I am writing a moderate-sized (a few KLOC) PyQt app. I started out writing it in nice modules for ease of comprehension but I am foundering on the rules of Python namespaces. At several points it is important to instantiate just one object of a class as a resource for other code.
For example: an object that represents Aspell attached as a subprocess, offering a check(word) method. Another example: the app features a single QTextEdit and other code needs to call on methods of this singular object, e.g. "if theEditWidget.document().isEmpty()..."
No matter where I instantiate such an object, it can only be referenced from code in that module and no other. So e.g. the code of the edit widget can't call on the Aspell gateway object unless the Aspell object is created in the same module. Fine except it is also needed from other modules.
In this question the bunch class is offered, but it seems to me a bunch has exactly the same problem: it's a unique object that can only be used in the module where it's created. Or am I completely missing the boat here?
OK suggested elsewhere, this seems like a simple answer to my problem. I just tested the following:
junk_main.py:
import junk_A
singularResource = junk_A.thing()
import junk_B
junk_B.handle = singularResource
print junk_B.look()
junk_A.py:
class thing():
def __init__(self):
self.member = 99
junk_B.py:
def look():
return handle.member
When I run junk_main it prints 99. So the main code can inject names into modules just by assignment. I am trying to think of reasons this is a bad idea.

You can access objects in a module with the . operator just like with a function. So, for example:
# Module a.py
a = 3
>>> import a
>>> print a.a
3
This is a trivial example, but you might want to do something like:
# Module EditWidget.py
theEditWidget = EditWidget()
...
# Another module
import EditWidget
if EditWidget.theEditWidget.document().isEmpty():
Or...
import * from EditWidget
if theEditWidget.document().isEmpty():
If you do go the import * from route, you can even define a list named __all__ in your modules with a list of the names (as strings) of all the objects you want your module to export to *. So if you wanted only theEditWidget to be exported, you could do:
# Module EditWidget.py
__all__ = ["theEditWidget"]
theEditWidget = EditWidget()
...

It turns out the answer is simpler than I thought. As I noted in the question, the main module can add names to an imported module. And any code can add members to an object. So the simple way to create an inter-module communication area is to create a very basic object in the main, say IMC (for inter-module communicator) and assign to it as members, anything that should be available to other modules:
IMC.special = A.thingy()
IMC.important_global_constant = 0x0001
etc. After importing any module, just assign IMC to it:
import B
B.IMC = IMC
Now, this is probably not the greatest idea from a software design standpoint. If you just limit IMC to holding named constants, it acts like a C header file. If it's just to give access to singular resources, it's like a link extern. But because of Python's liberal rules, code in any module can modify or add members to IMC. Used in an undisciplined way, "who changed that" could be a debugging issue. If there are multiple processes, race conditions are a danger.

At several points it is important to instantiate just one object of a class as a resource for other code.
Instead of trying to create some sort of singleton factory, can you not create the single-use object somewhere between the main point of entry for the program and instantiating the object that needs it? The single-use object can just be passed as a parameter to the other object. Logically, then, you won't create the single-use object more than once.
For example:
def main(...):
aspell_instance = ...
myapp = MyAppClass(aspell_instance)
or...
class SomeWidget(...):
def __init__(self, edit_widget):
self.edit_widget = edit_widget
def onSomeEvent(self, ...):
if self.edit_widget.document().isEmpty():
....
I don't know if that's clear enough, or if it's applicable to your situation. But to be honest, the only time I've found I can't do this is in a CherryPy-based webserver, where the points of entry were pretty much everywhere.

How to make a cross-module variable?

The __debug__ variable is handy in part because it affects every module. If I want to create another variable that works the same way, how would I do it?
The variable (let's be original and call it 'foo') doesn't have to be truly global, in the sense that if I change foo in one module, it is updated in others. I'd be fine if I could set foo before importing other modules and then they would see the same value for it.

If you need a global cross-module variable maybe just simple global module-level variable will suffice.
a.py:
var = 1
b.py:
import a
print a.var
import c
print a.var
c.py:
import a
a.var = 2
Test:
$ python b.py
# -> 1 2
Real-world example: Django's global_settings.py (though in Django apps settings are used by importing the object django.conf.settings).

I don't endorse this solution in any way, shape or form. But if you add a variable to the __builtin__ module, it will be accessible as if a global from any other module that includes __builtin__ -- which is all of them, by default.
a.py contains
print foo
b.py contains
import __builtin__
__builtin__.foo = 1
import a
The result is that "1" is printed.
Edit: The __builtin__ module is available as the local symbol __builtins__ -- that's the reason for the discrepancy between two of these answers. Also note that __builtin__ has been renamed to builtins in python3.

I believe that there are plenty of circumstances in which it does make sense and it simplifies programming to have some globals that are known across several (tightly coupled) modules. In this spirit, I would like to elaborate a bit on the idea of having a module of globals which is imported by those modules which need to reference them.
When there is only one such module, I name it "g". In it, I assign default values for every variable I intend to treat as global. In each module that uses any of them, I do not use "from g import var", as this only results in a local variable which is initialized from g only at the time of the import. I make most references in the form g.var, and the "g." serves as a constant reminder that I am dealing with a variable that is potentially accessible to other modules.
If the value of such a global variable is to be used frequently in some function in a module, then that function can make a local copy: var = g.var. However, it is important to realize that assignments to var are local, and global g.var cannot be updated without referencing g.var explicitly in an assignment.
Note that you can also have multiple such globals modules shared by different subsets of your modules to keep things a little more tightly controlled. The reason I use short names for my globals modules is to avoid cluttering up the code too much with occurrences of them. With only a little experience, they become mnemonic enough with only 1 or 2 characters.
It is still possible to make an assignment to, say, g.x when x was not already defined in g, and a different module can then access g.x. However, even though the interpreter permits it, this approach is not so transparent, and I do avoid it. There is still the possibility of accidentally creating a new variable in g as a result of a typo in the variable name for an assignment. Sometimes an examination of dir(g) is useful to discover any surprise names that may have arisen by such accident.

Define a module ( call it "globalbaz" ) and have the variables defined inside it. All the modules using this "pseudoglobal" should import the "globalbaz" module, and refer to it using "globalbaz.var_name"
This works regardless of the place of the change, you can change the variable before or after the import. The imported module will use the latest value. (I tested this in a toy example)
For clarification, globalbaz.py looks just like this:
var_name = "my_useful_string"

You can pass the globals of one module to onother:
In Module A:
import module_b
my_var=2
module_b.do_something_with_my_globals(globals())
print my_var
In Module B:
def do_something_with_my_globals(glob): # glob is simply a dict.
glob["my_var"]=3

Global variables are usually a bad idea, but you can do this by assigning to __builtins__:
__builtins__.foo = 'something'
print foo
Also, modules themselves are variables that you can access from any module. So if you define a module called my_globals.py:
# my_globals.py
foo = 'something'
Then you can use that from anywhere as well:
import my_globals
print my_globals.foo
Using modules rather than modifying __builtins__ is generally a cleaner way to do globals of this sort.

You can already do this with module-level variables. Modules are the same no matter what module they're being imported from. So you can make the variable a module-level variable in whatever module it makes sense to put it in, and access it or assign to it from other modules. It would be better to call a function to set the variable's value, or to make it a property of some singleton object. That way if you end up needing to run some code when the variable's changed, you can do so without breaking your module's external interface.
It's not usually a great way to do things — using globals seldom is — but I think this is the cleanest way to do it.

I wanted to post an answer that there is a case where the variable won't be found.
Cyclical imports may break the module behavior.
For example:
first.py
import second
var = 1
second.py
import first
print(first.var) # will throw an error because the order of execution happens before var gets declared.
main.py
import first
On this is example it should be obvious, but in a large code-base, this can be really confusing.

I wondered if it would be possible to avoid some of the disadvantages of using global variables (see e.g. http://wiki.c2.com/?GlobalVariablesAreBad) by using a class namespace rather than a global/module namespace to pass values of variables. The following code indicates that the two methods are essentially identical. There is a slight advantage in using class namespaces as explained below.
The following code fragments also show that attributes or variables may be dynamically created and deleted in both global/module namespaces and class namespaces.
wall.py
# Note no definition of global variables
class router:
""" Empty class """
I call this module 'wall' since it is used to bounce variables off of. It will act as a space to temporarily define global variables and class-wide attributes of the empty class 'router'.
source.py
import wall
def sourcefn():
msg = 'Hello world!'
wall.msg = msg
wall.router.msg = msg
This module imports wall and defines a single function sourcefn which defines a message and emits it by two different mechanisms, one via globals and one via the router function. Note that the variables wall.msg and wall.router.message are defined here for the first time in their respective namespaces.
dest.py
import wall
def destfn():
if hasattr(wall, 'msg'):
print 'global: ' + wall.msg
del wall.msg
else:
print 'global: ' + 'no message'
if hasattr(wall.router, 'msg'):
print 'router: ' + wall.router.msg
del wall.router.msg
else:
print 'router: ' + 'no message'
This module defines a function destfn which uses the two different mechanisms to receive the messages emitted by source. It allows for the possibility that the variable 'msg' may not exist. destfn also deletes the variables once they have been displayed.
main.py
import source, dest
source.sourcefn()
dest.destfn() # variables deleted after this call
dest.destfn()
This module calls the previously defined functions in sequence. After the first call to dest.destfn the variables wall.msg and wall.router.msg no longer exist.
The output from the program is:
global: Hello world!
router: Hello world!
global: no message
router: no message
The above code fragments show that the module/global and the class/class variable mechanisms are essentially identical.
If a lot of variables are to be shared, namespace pollution can be managed either by using several wall-type modules, e.g. wall1, wall2 etc. or by defining several router-type classes in a single file. The latter is slightly tidier, so perhaps represents a marginal advantage for use of the class-variable mechanism.

This sounds like modifying the __builtin__ name space. To do it:
import __builtin__
__builtin__.foo = 'some-value'
Do not use the __builtins__ directly (notice the extra "s") - apparently this can be a dictionary or a module. Thanks to ΤΖΩΤΖΙΟΥ for pointing this out, more can be found here.
Now foo is available for use everywhere.
I don't recommend doing this generally, but the use of this is up to the programmer.
Assigning to it must be done as above, just setting foo = 'some-other-value' will only set it in the current namespace.

I use this for a couple built-in primitive functions that I felt were really missing. One example is a find function that has the same usage semantics as filter, map, reduce.
def builtin_find(f, x, d=None):
for i in x:
if f(i):
return i
return d
import __builtin__
__builtin__.find = builtin_find
Once this is run (for instance, by importing near your entry point) all your modules can use find() as though, obviously, it was built in.
find(lambda i: i < 0, [1, 3, 0, -5, -10]) # Yields -5, the first negative.
Note: You can do this, of course, with filter and another line to test for zero length, or with reduce in one sort of weird line, but I always felt it was weird.

I could achieve cross-module modifiable (or mutable) variables by using a dictionary:
# in myapp.__init__
Timeouts = {} # cross-modules global mutable variables for testing purpose
Timeouts['WAIT_APP_UP_IN_SECONDS'] = 60
# in myapp.mod1
from myapp import Timeouts
def wait_app_up(project_name, port):
# wait for app until Timeouts['WAIT_APP_UP_IN_SECONDS']
# ...
# in myapp.test.test_mod1
from myapp import Timeouts
def test_wait_app_up_fail(self):
timeout_bak = Timeouts['WAIT_APP_UP_IN_SECONDS']
Timeouts['WAIT_APP_UP_IN_SECONDS'] = 3
with self.assertRaises(hlp.TimeoutException) as cm:
wait_app_up(PROJECT_NAME, PROJECT_PORT)
self.assertEqual("Timeout while waiting for App to start", str(cm.exception))
Timeouts['WAIT_JENKINS_UP_TIMEOUT_IN_SECONDS'] = timeout_bak
When launching test_wait_app_up_fail, the actual timeout duration is 3 seconds.