[Python-ideas] Adding a subprocess.CompletedProcess class (original) (raw)

Wes Turner wes.turner at gmail.com
Sun Feb 1 04:28:11 CET 2015


On Jan 29, 2015 3:11 PM, "Thomas Kluyver" <thomas at kluyver.me.uk> wrote:

On 29 January 2015 at 03:47, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

I still suspect we should be offering a simpler way to decouple the creation of the pipes from the subprocess call, but I have no idea what that API should look like, Presumably that would need some kind of object representing a not-yet-started process. Technically, that could be Popen, but for backwards compatibility the Popen constructor needs to start the process, and p = Popen(..., start=False) seems inelegant. Let's imagine it's a new class called Command. Then you could start coming up with interfaces like: c = subprocess.Command(...) c.stdout = fileobj c.stderr = fileobj2 # Or c.capture('combined') # sets stdout=PIPE and stderr=STDOUT # Maybe get into operator overloading? pipeline = c | c2 # Could this work? Would probably require threading c.stdout = BytesIO() c.stderrdecoded = StringIO() # When you've finished setting things up c.run() # returns a Popen instance N.B. This is 'thinking aloud', not any kind of proposal - I'm not convinced by any of that API myself.

Here's a start at adding an 'expect_returncode' to sarge.

I really like the sarge .run() and Capture APIs:



More information about the Python-ideas mailing list