I'm trying to call a bash script with python, but I need it to be last thing executed.
I thought just adding this at the end of my script would do it :
val = subprocess.check_call("/scripts/files.sh '%s'" % title, shell=True)
But it's being executed before the code above it, why?
Last lines above it :
print(q_1)
print(q_2)
print(q_3)
cursor.execute(q_1)
cursor.execute(q_2)
cursor.execute(q_3)
mariadb_connection.commit()
cursor.close()
mariadb_connection.close()
I do use val = subprocess.check_call before all this code to run another bash script too, if that matters
How can I be sure my script will be the last thing executed?
Python is scripting language, meaning the lines are executed frpm first to last.
All you havr to do is place you command at tgr enf of your python script
Let's assume your script looks something like
obj = MySqlSomething()
things
more things
val = subprocess.check_call(x)
If the class MySqlSomething has a destructor, it will be called after check_call, when you fall off the end of the script and obj goes out of scope. The fix is to make this happen earlier, trivially by moving the stuff into a function:
def main_main():
obj = MySqlSomething()
things
more things
main_main()
val = subprocess.check_call(x)
With this arrangement, obj goes out of scope at the end of main_main.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Running another ruby script from a ruby script
(7 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'd like to write a ruby script that then calls another ruby script.
Example, I'd like to run the "test1.rb" from my script.
The test1.rb has been simplified to just do this:
print "1"
Then get the result (-> 1).
I tried to complete this problem with backticks or another executing command (%x[#{"test1.rb"}], system("test1.rb") etc.), but it didn't work.
So any idea how I call one script that then calls another script (either relinquishing total control or forking), and get the results?
Thanks
You can simply require the file, which would load the code and execute it:
require_relative "path/test1"
For the sake of having controll over the the run code, I would advice to place your script in a method:
# In test1.rb
def exec_my_script
puts 1
end
# In your main script
require_relative "path/test1"
exec_my_script
EDIT: Ok, since this does not seem to work for your usecase, you can read the file as string and eval the string as so:
result = eval(File.read("path/test1.rb"))
# do something with result
I do NOT like this approach, because it feels kinda "hacky" and is by all means insecure and it will only work if the last thing called in your test1 script returns the result you need...
You may want to use open3
require 'open3'
cmd = 'ruby test1.rb'
#You may change the contents of cmd like you would run it from the command line; like ruby [directory]/filename
Open3.popen3(cmd) do |stdin, stdout|
var = stdout.read
puts var
end
system('ruby test1.rb') # should do the trick
You can also make test1 executable (with chmod) and add the shebang line on top of test1.
You then can call
system("./test1.rb")
Ok, the system('ruby test1.rb') and system("ruby", "test1.rb") command worked.
And now, I like to set the returning value ("1") to a variable.
How I do it? It's possible to do that with backticks?
I want to run some shell scripts remotely as part of my capistrano setup. To test that functionality, I use this code:
execute <<SHELL
cat <<TEST
something
TEST
SHELL
However, that is actually running /usr/bin/env cat <<TEST; something; TEST which is obviously not going to work. How do I tell capistrano to execute the heredoc as I have written it, without converting the newlines into semicolons?
I have Capistrano Version: 3.2.1 (Rake Version: 10.3.2) and do not know ruby particularly well, so there might be something obvious I missed.
I think it might work to just specify the arguments to cat as a second, er, argument to execute:
cat_args = <<SHELL
<<TEST
something
TEST
SHELL
execute "cat", cat_args
From the code #DavidGrayson posted, it looks like only the command (the first argument to execute) is sanitized.
I agree with David, though, that the simpler way might be to put the data in a file, which is what the SSHKit documentation suggests:
Upload a file from a stream
on hosts do |host|
file = File.open('/config/database.yml')
io = StringIO.new(....)
upload! file, '/opt/my_project/shared/database.yml'
upload! io, '/opt/my_project/shared/io.io.io'
end
The IO streaming is useful for uploading something rather than "cat"ing it, for example
on hosts do |host|
contents = StringIO.new('ALL ALL = (ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL')
upload! contents, '/etc/sudoers.d/yolo'
end
This spares one from having to figure out the correct escaping sequences for something like "echo(:cat, '...?...', '> /etc/sudoers.d/yolo')".
This seems like it would work perfectly for your use case.
The code responsible for this sanitization can be found in SSHKit::Command#sanitize_command!, which is called by that class's initialize method. You can see the source code here:
https://github.com/capistrano/sshkit/blob/9ac8298c6a62582455b1b55b5e742fd9e948cefe/lib/sshkit/command.rb#L216-226
You might consider monkeypatching it to do nothing by adding something like this to the top of your Rakefile:
SSHKit::Command # force the class to load so we can re-open it
class SSHKit::Command
def sanitize_command!
return if some_condition
super
end
end
This is risky and could introduce problems in other places; for example there might be parts of Capistrano that assume that the command has no newlines.
You are probably better off making a shell script that contains the heredoc or putting the heredoc in a file somewhere.
Ok, so this is the solution I figured out myself, in case it's useful for someone else:
str = %x(
base64 <<TEST
some
thing
TEST
).delete("\n")
execute "echo #{str} | base64 -d | cat -"
As you can see, I'm base64 encoding my command, sending it through, then decoding it on the server side where it can be evaluated intact. This works, but it's a real ugly hack - I hope someone can come up with a better solution.
i would like to show you my use case and then discuss possible solutions:
Problem A:
i have 2 recipes, "a" and "b".. "a" installs some program on my file system (say at "/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh" and recipe "b" needs to run this and do something with the output.
so recipe "a" looks something like:
execute "echo 'echo stuff' > /usr/local/bin/stuff.sh"
(the script just echo(es) "stuff" to stdout)
and recipe "b" looks something like:
include_recipe "a"
var=`/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`
(note the backquotes, var should contain stuff)
and now i need to do something with it, for instance create a user with this username. so at script "b" i add
user "#{node[:var]}"
As it happens, this doesn't work.. apparently chef runs everything that is not a resource and only then runs the resources so as soon as i run the script chef complains that it cannot compile because it first tries to run the "var=..." line at recipe "b" and fails because the "execute ..." at recipe a did not run yet and so the "stuff.sh" script does not exist yet.
Needless to say, this is extremely annoying as it breaks the "Chef runs everything in order from top to bottom" that i was promised when i started using it.
However, i am not very picky so i started looking for alternative solutions to this problem, so:
Problem B: i've run across the idea of "ruby_block". apparently, this is a resource so it will be evaluated along with the other resources. I said ok, then i'd like to create the script, get the output in a "ruby_block" and then pass it to "user". so recipe "b" now looks something like:
include_recipe "a"
ruby_block "a_block" do
block do
node.default[:var] = `/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`
end
end
user "#{node[:var]}"
However, as it turns out the variable (var) was not passed from "ruby_block" to "user" and it remains empty. No matter what juggling i've tried to do with it i failed (or maybe i just didn't find the correct juggling method)
To the chef/ruby masters around: How do i solve Problem A? How do i solve Problem B?
You have already solved problem A with the Ruby block.
Now you have to solve problem B with a similar approach:
ruby_block "create user" do
block do
user = Chef::Resource::User.new(node[:var], run_context)
user.shell '/bin/bash' # Set parameters using this syntax
user.run_action :create
user.run_action :manage # Run multiple actions (if needed) by declaring them sequentially
end
end
You could also solve problem A by creating the file during the compile phase:
execute "echo 'echo stuff' > /usr/local/bin/stuff.sh" do
action :nothing
end.run_action(:run)
If following this course of action, make sure that:
/usr/local/bin exist during Chef's compile phase;
Either:
stuff.sh is executable; OR
Execute it through a shell (e.g.: var=`sh /usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`
The modern way to do this is to use a custom resource:
in cookbooks/create_script/resources/create_script.rb
provides :create_script
unified_mode true
property :script_name, :name_property: true
action :run do
execute "creating #{script_name}" do
command "echo 'echo stuff' > #{script_name}"
not_if { File.exist?(script_name) }
end
end
Then in recipe code:
create_script "/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh"
For the second case as written I'd avoid the use of a node variable entirely:
script_location = "/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh"
create_script script_location
# note: the user resources takes a username not a file path so the example is a bit
# strange, but that is the way the question was asked.
user script_location
If you need to move it into an attribute and call it from different recipes then there's no need for ruby_blocks or lazy:
some cookbook's attributes/default.rb file (or a policyfile, etc):
default['script_location'] = "/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh"
in recipe code or other custom resources:
create_script node['script_location']
user node['script_location']
There's no need to lazy things or use ruby_block using this approach.
There are actually a few ways to solve the issue that you're having.
The first way is to avoid the scope issues you're having in the passed blocks and do something like ths.
include_recipe "a"
this = self
ruby_block "a_block" do
block do
this.user `/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`
end
end
Assuming that you plan on only using this once, that would work great. But if you're legitimately needing to store a variable on the node for other uses you can rely on the lazy call inside ruby to do a little work around of the issue.
include_recipe "a"
ruby_block "a_block" do
block do
node.default[:var] = `/usr/local/bin/stuff.sh`.strip
end
end
user do
username lazy { "#{node[:var]}" }
end
You'll quickly notice with Chef that it has an override for all default assumptions for cases just like this.
say we have a ruby file.rb like:
if __FILE__ == $0 then
if ARGV[0] == 'foo'
puts "working"
# Dir.chdir(../)
v = Someclass.new
v.do_something
end
end
it suppose to print working only if the file was triggered like ruby file.rb foo.
My question: how can that kind of stuf be tested within rspec?
My try is below. The file ran but not in the scope of rspec test:
Dir expected :chdir with (any args) once, but received it 0 times
it 'should work' do
FILE = File.expand_path('file.rb')
RUBY = File.join(Config::CONFIG['bindir'], Config::CONFIG['ruby_install_name'])
#v = Someclass.new
Someclass.should_receive(:new).and_return #v
#v.should_receive(:do_something)
`#{RUBY} #{FILE} foo`
end
Backticks runs new shell, executes command, and returns result as a string. Thats why it runs outside your scope. Backticks does not care about contents of your script: ruby, bash, or something else.
chdir, of course, applied only to this new shell, so there seems no way to check you sample script for directory changing (except of tracing system calls). Maybe some 'real' script will do something, output more, thus providing more possibilities to check it.
I'm new to Ruby, so apologies if this sounds really silly.
I can't seem to figure out how to write a "main" code and have methods in the same file (similar to C). I end up with a "main" file which loads a seperate file that has all the methods. I appreciate any guidance on this.
I spotted the following SO post but I don't understand it:
Should I define a main method in my ruby scripts?
While it's not a big deal, it's just easier being able to see all the relevant code in the same file. Thank you.
[-EDIT-]
Thanks to everyone who responded - turns out you just need to define all the methods above the code. An example is below:
def callTest1
puts "in test 1"
end
def callTest2
puts "in test 2"
end
callTest1
callTest2
I think this makes sense as Ruby needs to know all methods beforehand. This is unlike C where there is a header file which clearly list the available functions and therefore, can define them beneath the main() function
Again, thanks to everyone who responded.
#Hauleth's answer is correct: there is no main method or structure in Ruby. I just want to provide a slightly different view here along with some explanation.
When you execute ruby somefile.rb, Ruby executes all of the code in somefile.rb. So if you have a very small project and want it to be self-contained in a single file, there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing something like this:
# somefile.rb
class MyClass
def say_hello
puts "Hello World"
end
end
def another_hello
puts "Hello World (from a method)"
end
c = MyClass.new
c.say_hello
another_hello
It's not that the first two blocks aren't executed, it's just that you don't see the effects until you actually use the corresponding class/method.
The if __FILE__ == $0 bit is just a way to block off code that you only want to run if this file is being run directly from the command line. __FILE__
is the name of the current file, $0 is the command that was executed by the shell (though it's smart enough to drop the ruby), so comparing the two tells you precisely that: is this the file that was executed from the command line? This is sometimes done by coders who want to define a class/module in a file and also provide a command-line utility that uses it. IMHO that's not very good project structure, but just like anything there are use cases where doing it makes perfect sense.
If you want to be able to execute your code directly, you can add a shebang line
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
# rest of somefile.rb
and make it executable with chmod +x somefile.rb (optionally rename it without the .rb extension). This doesn't really change your situation. The if __FILE__ == $0 still works and still probably isn't necessary.
Edit
As #steenslag correctly points out, the top-level scope in Ruby is an Object called main. It has slightly funky behavior, though:
irb
>> self
=> main
>> self.class
=> Object
>> main
NameError: undefined local variable or method `main' for main:Object
from (irb):8
Don't worry about this until you start to dig much deeper into the language. If you do want to learn lots more about this kind of stuff, Metaprogramming Ruby is a great read :)
No there isn't such structure. Of course you can define main function but it won't be called until you do so. Ruby execute line by line so if you want to print 'Hello World' you simply write:
puts 'Hello World'
The question that you mentioned is about using one file as module and executable, so if you write
if __FILE__ == $0
# your code
end
It will be called only if you run this file. If you only require it in other file then this code will never run. But IMHO it's bad idea, better option is using RubyGems and there add executables.
Actually there is a main, but it is not a method; it's the top-level object that is the initial execution context of a Ruby program.
class Foo
p self
end
#=> Foo
p self
#=> main
def foo
p self
end
foo
#=> main
There is no magic main function in Ruby. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_function#Ruby
If you wish to run Ruby scripts like C compiled files, do the following:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts "Hello"
and then chmod a+x file_name.rb. Everything that is below the first line will be run, as if it was contents of main in C. Of course class and function definitions won't give you any results until they are instantiated/invoked (although the code inside class definitions is actually evaluated, so you could get some output but this is not expected in normal circumstances).
Another way to write main() method is:
class HelloWorld
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
def sayHello()
print "Hello ##name!"
end
end
def main()
helloWorld = HelloWorld.new("Alice")
helloWorld.sayHello
end
main