Develop Reference

'try' for 'duration' in python 3

I am figuring out how to have my python try to complete an action ( that may never be able to happen ) until what is the equivalent of a timer runs out in which case it runs a separate function.
The exact scenario is bypassing the "Warning" screen that outlook provides when something of an automation system tries accessing it. When the initial command is sent to retrieve data from or otherwise manipulate outlook the entire python script just stops and waits ( as best as I can tell ) waiting for the user to click "Allow" on the outlook program before it will continue. What I'd like to happen is that upon it trying to do the manipulation of outlook there be a timer that starts. If the timer reaches X value, skip that command that was sent to outlook and do a different set of actions.
I feel that this may lead into something called "Threading" in order to have simultaneous processes running but I also feel that I may be over complicating the concept. If I were to do a mockup of what I think may be written to accomplish this, this is what I'd come up with...
time1 = time.clock()
try:
mail = inbox.Items[0].Sender
except if time1 > time1+10:
outlookWarningFunc()
I am 99.9% sure that "except" isn't ever used in such a manner hence why it isn't a functional piece of code but it was the closest thing I could think of to at least convey what I am trying to get to.
I appreciate your time. Thank you.

One of the solutions is this:
import threading
mail = None
def func():
global mail
mail = inbox.Items[0].Sender
thread = threading.Thread(target=func)
thread.start()
thread.join(timeout=10)
if thread.is_alive():
# operation not completed
outlookWarningFunc()
# you must do cleanup here and stop the thread
You start a new thread which performs the operation and wait 10 seconds for it until it completes or the time is out. Then, you check if job is done. If the thread is alive, it means that the task was not completed yet.
The pitfall of this solution is that the thread is still running in the background, so you must do cleanup actions which allows the thread to complete or raise an exception.

How to integrate killable processes/thread in Python GUI?

Kind all, I'm really new to python and I'm facing a task which I can't completely grasp.
I've created an interface with Tkinter which should accomplish a couple of apparently easy feats.
By clicking a "Start" button two threads/processes will be started (each calling multiple subfunctions) which mainly read data from a serial port (one port per process, of course) and write them to file.
The I/O actions are looped within a while loop with a very high counter to allow them to go onward almost indefinitely.
The "Stop" button should stop the acquisition and essentially it should:
Kill the read/write Thread
Close the file
Close the serial port
Unfortunately I still do not understand how to accomplish point 1, i.e.: how to create killable threads without killing the whole GUI. Is there any way of doing this?
Thank you all!

First, you have to choose whether you are going to use threads or processes.
I will not go too much into differences, google it ;) Anyway, here are some things to consider: it is much easier to establish communication between threads than betweeween processes; in Python, all threads will run on the same CPU core (see Python GIL), but subprocesses may use multiple cores.
Processes
If you are using subprocesses, there are two ways: subprocess.Popen and multiprocessing.Process. With Popen you can run anything, whereas Process gives a simpler thread-like interface to running python code which is part of your project in a subprocess.
Both can be killed using terminate method.
See documentation for multiprocessing and subprocess
Of course, if you want a more graceful exit, you will want to send an "exit" message to the subprocess, rather than just terminate it, so that it gets a chance to do the clean-up. You could do that e.g. by writing to its stdin. The process should read from stdin and when it gets message "exit", it should do whatever you need before exiting.
Threads
For threads, you have to implement your own mechanism for stopping, rather than using something as violent as process.terminate().
Usually, a thread runs in a loop and in that loop you check for a flag which says stop. Then you break from the loop.
I usually have something like this:
class MyThread(Thread):
def __init__(self):
super(Thread, self).__init__()
self._stop_event = threading.Event()
def run(self):
while not self._stop_event.is_set():
# do something
self._stop_event.wait(SLEEP_TIME)
# clean-up before exit
def stop(self, timeout):
self._stop_event.set()
self.join(timeout)
Of course, you need some exception handling etc, but this is the basic idea.
EDIT: Answers to questions in comment
thread.start_new_thread(your_function) starts a new thread, that is correct. On the other hand, module threading gives you a higher-level API which is much nicer.
With threading module, you can do the same with:
t = threading.Thread(target=your_function)
t.start()
or you can make your own class which inherits from Thread and put your functionality in the run method, as in the example above. Then, when user clicks the start button, you do:
t = MyThread()
t.start()
You should store the t variable somewhere. Exactly where depends on how you designed the rest of your application. I would probably have some object which hold all active threads in a list.
When user clicks stop, you should:
t.stop(some_reasonable_time_in_which_the_thread_should_stop)
After that, you can remove the t from your list, it is not usable any more.

First you can use subprocess.Popen() to spawn child processes, then later you can use Popen.terminate() to terminate them.
Note that you could also do everything in a single Python thread, without subprocesses, if you want to. It's perfectly possible to "multiplex" reading from multiple ports in a single event loop.

Is it possible to prevent python's http.client.HTTPResponse.read() from hanging when there is no data?

I'm using Python http.client.HTTPResponse.read() to read data from a stream. That is, the server keeps the connection open forever and sends data periodically as it becomes available. There is no expected length of response. In particular, I'm getting Tweets through the Twitter Streaming API.
To accomplish this, I repeatedly call http.client.HTTPResponse.read(1) to get the response, one byte at a time. The problem is that the program will hang on that line if there is no data to read, which there isn't for large periods of time (when no Tweets are coming in).
I'm looking for a method that will get a single byte of the HTTP response, if available, but that will fail instantly if there is no data to read.
I've read that you can set a timeout when the connection is created, but setting a timeout on the connection defeats the whole purpose of leaving it open for a long time waiting for data to come in. I don't want to set a timeout, I want to read data if there is data to be read, or fail if there is not, without waiting at all.
I'd like to do this with what I have now (using http.client), but if it's absolutely necessary that I use a different library to do this, then so be it. I'm trying to write this entirely myself, so suggesting that I use someone else's already-written Twitter API for Python is not what I'm looking for.
This code gets the response, it runs in a separate thread from the main one:
while True:
try:
readByte = dc.request.read(1)
except:
readByte = []
if len(byte) != 0:
dc.responseLock.acquire()
dc.response = dc.response + chr(byte[0])
dc.responseLock.release()
Note that the request is stored in dc.request and the response in dc.response, these are created elsewhere. dc.responseLock is a Lock that prevents dc.response from being accessed by multiple threads at once.
With this running on a separate thread, the main thread can then get dc.response, which contains the entire response received so far. New data is added to dc.response as it comes in without blocking the main thread.
This works perfectly when it's running, but I run into a problem when I want it to stop. I changed my while statement to while not dc.twitterAbort, so that when I want to abort this thread I just set dc.twitterAbort to True, and the thread will stop.
But it doesn't. This thread remains for a very long time afterward, stuck on the dc.request.read(1) part. There must be some sort of timeout, because it does eventually get back to the while statement and stop the thread, but it takes around 10 seconds for that to happen.
How can I get my thread to stop immediately when I want it to, if it's stuck on the call to read()?
Again, this method is working to get Tweets, the problem is only in getting it to stop. If I'm going about this entirely the wrong way, feel free to point me in the right direction. I'm new to Python, so I may be overlooking some easier way of going about this.

Your idea is not new, there are OS mechanisms(*) for making sure that an application is only calling I/O-related system calls when they are guaranteed to be not blocking . These mechanisms are usually used by async I/O frameworks, such as tornado or gevent. Use one of those, and you will find it very easy to run code "while" your application is waiting for an I/O event, such as waiting for incoming data on a socket.
If you use gevent's monkey-patching method, you can proceed using http.client, as requested. You just need to get used to the cooperative scheduling paradigm introduced by gevent/greenlets, in which your execution flow "jumps" between sub-routines.
Of course you can also perform blocking I/O in another thread (like you did), so that it does not affect the responsiveness of your main thread. Regarding your "How can I get my thread to stop immediately" problem:
Forcing a thread that's blocking in a system call to stop is usually not a clean or even valid process (also see Is there any way to kill a Thread in Python?). Either -- if your application has finished its jobs -- you take down the entire process, which also affects all contained threads, or you just leave the thread be and give it as much time to terminate as required (these 10 seconds you were referring to are not a problem -- are they?)
If you do not want to have such long-blocking system calls anywhere in your application (be it in the main thread or not), then use above-mentioned techniques to prevent blocking system calls.
(*) see e.g. O_NONBLOCK option in http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/open.2.html

How to use Daemon that has a while loop? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How do you create a daemon in Python?
(16 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I am new with Daemons and I was wondering how can I make my main script a daemon?
I have my main script which I wish to make a Daemon and run in the background:
main.py
def requestData(information):
return currently_crunched_data()
while True:
crunchData()
I would like to be able to use the requestData function to this daemon while the loop is running. I am not too familiar with Daemons or how to convert my script into one.
However I am guessing I would have to make two threads, one for my cruncData loop and one for the Daemon request receiever since the Daemon has its own loop (daemon.requestLoop()).
I am currently looking into Pyro to do this. Does anyone know how I can ultimately make a background running while loop have the ability to receive requests from other processes (like a Daemon I suppose) ?

There are already a number of questions on creating a daemon in Python, like this one, which answer that part nicely.
So, how do you have your daemon do background work?
As you suspected, threads are an obvious answer. But there are three possible complexities.
First, there's shutdown. If you're lucky, your crunchData function can be summarily killed at any time with no corrupted data or (too-significant) lost work. In that case:
def worker():
while True:
crunchData()
# ... somewhere in the daemon startup code ...
t = threading.Thread(target=worker)
t.daemon = True
t.start()
Notice that t.daemon. A "daemon thread" has nothing to do with your program being a daemon; it means that you can just quit the main process, and it will be summarily killed.
But what if crunchData can't be killed? Then you'll need to do something like this:
quitflag = False
quitlock = threading.Lock()
def worker():
while True:
with quitlock:
if quitflag:
return
crunchData()
# ... somewhere in the daemon startup code ...
t = threading.Thread(target=worker)
t.start()
# ... somewhere in the daemon shutdown code ...
with quitlock:
quitflag = True
t.join()
I'm assuming each iteration of crunchData doesn't take that long. If it does, you may need to check quitFlag periodically within the function itself.
Meanwhile, you want your request handler to access some data that the background thread is producing. You'll need some kind of synchronization there as well.
The obvious thing is to just use another Lock. But there's a good chance that crunchData is writing to its data frequently. If it holds the lock for 10 seconds at a time, the request handler may block for 10 seconds. But if it grabs and releases the lock a million times, that could take longer than the actual work.
One alternative is to double-buffer your data: Have crunchData write into a new copy, then, when it's done, briefly grab the lock and set currentData = newData.
Depending on your use case, a Queue, a file, or something else might be even simpler.
Finally, crunchData is presumably doing a lot of CPU work. You need to make sure that the request handler does very little CPU work, or each request will slow things down quite a bit as the two threads fight over the GIL. Usually this is no problem. If it is, use a multiprocessing.Process instead of a Thread (which makes sharing or passing the data between the two processes slightly more complicated, but still not too bad).

Setting up idle thread/signalling thread

I'm using Python with wxPython for writing an app.
The method I'm considering to accomplish this may not be the best - if that's the case, let me know because I'm open to refactoring.
Right now, I have one GUI form. The main program start point instantiates an instance of the GUI form then runs wx.mainLoop(), which causes the app's main initial thread to block for the lifetime of the app.
We of course know that when events happen in the UI, the UI thread runs the code for them.
Now, I have another thread - a worker thread. This thread needs to sit idle, and then when something happens in the UI thread, e.g. a button is clicked, I want the worker thread to stop idling and do something else - run a function, say.
I can't envision this right now but I could see as the app gets more complex also having to signal the worker thread while it's actually busy doing something.
I have two questions about this setup:
How can I make my worker thread idle without using up CPU time? Doing something like while True: pass will suck CPU time, while something like while True: time.sleep(0.1) will not allow instantaneous reaction to events.
What's the best way to signal into the worker thread to do something? I don't want the UI thread to execute something, I want the worker thread to be signaled, by the UI thread, that it should change what it's doing. Ideally, I'd have some way for the worker thread to register a callback with the UI itself, so that when a button is clicked or any other UI Event happens, the worker thread is signalled to change what it's doing.
So, is this the best way to accomplish this? And what's the best way to do it?
Thanks!

First: Do you actually need a background thread to sit around idle in the first place?
On most platforms, starting a new thread is cheap. (Except on Windows and Linux, where it's supercheap.) So, why not just kick off a thread whenever you need it? (It's just as easy to keep around a list of threads as a single thread, right?)
Alternatively, why not just create a ThreadPoolExecutor, and just submit jobs to it, and let the executor worry about when they get run and on which thread. Any time you can just think in terms of "tasks that need to get run without blocking the main thread" instead of "worker threads that need to wait on work", you're making your life easier. Under the covers, there's still one or more worker threads waiting on a queue, or something equivalent, but that part's all been written (and debugged and optimized) for you. All you have to write are the tasks, which are just regular functions.
But, if you want to write explicit background threads, you can, so I'll explain that.
How can I make my worker thread idle without using up CPU time? … What's the best way to signal into the worker thread to do something?
The way to idle a thread until a value is ready is to wait on a synchronization object. On any modern OS, waiting on a synchronization object means the operating system stops giving you any CPU time until the object is ready for you.*
There are a variety of different options you can see in the Threading module docs, but the obvious one to use in most cases like this is a Condition. The way to signal the worker thread is then to notify the Condition.
However, often a Queue is a lot simpler. To wait on a Queue, just call its get method with block=True. To signal another thread to wake up, just put something on the Queue. (Under the covers, a Queue wraps up a list or deque or other collection, a Lock, and a Condition, so you just tell it what you want to do—check for a value, block until there's a value, add a value—instead of dealing with waiting and signaling and protecting the collection.)
See the answer to controlling UI elements in wxPython using threading for how to signal in both directions, from a worker thread to a UI thread and vice-versa.
I'd have some way for the worker thread to register a callback with the UI itself, so that when a button is clicked or any other UI Event happens, the worker thread is signalled to change what it's doing.
You can do it this way if you want. Just pass self.queue.put or def callback(value): self.value = value; self.condition.notify() or whatever as a callback, and the GUI thread doesn't even have to know that the callback is triggering another thread.
In fact, that's a pretty nice design that may make you very happy later, when you decide to move some code back and forth between inline and background-threaded, or move it off to a child process instead of a background thread, or whatever.
I can't envision this right now but I could see as the app gets more complex also having to signal the worker thread while it's actually busy doing something.
But what do you want to happen if it's busy?
If you just want to say "If you're idle, wake up and do this task; otherwise, hold onto it and do it whenever you're ready", that's exactly what a Queue, or an Executor, will do for you automatically.
If you want to say, "If you're idle, wake up, otherwise, don't worry about it", that's what a Condition or Event will do.
If you want to say, "If you're idle, wake up and do this, otherwise, cancel what you're doing and do this instead", that's a bit more complicated. You pretty much need to have the background thread periodically check an "interrupt_me" variable while it's busy (and put a Lock around it), and then you'll set that flag as well as notifying the Condition… although in some cases, you can merge the idle and busy cases into a single Condition or Event (by calling an infinite wait() when idle, and a quick-check wait(timeout=0) when busy).
* In some cases—e.g., a Linux futex or a Windows CriticalSection—it may actually spin off a little bit of CPU time in some cases, because that happens to be a good optimization. But the point is, you're not asking for any CPU time until you're ready to use it.