Pythonic way to verify parameter is a sequence but not string

Question

I have a function that gets a list of DB tables as parameter, and returns a command string to be executed on these tables, e.g.:

pg_dump( file='/tmp/dump.sql',
         tables=('stack', 'overflow'),
         port=5434
         name=europe)

Should return something like:

pg_dump -t stack -t overflow -f /tmp/dump.sql -p 5434 europe

This is done using tables_string='-t '+' -t '.join(tables).

The fun begins when the function is called with: tables=('stackoverflow') (a string) instead of tables=('stackoverflow',) (a tuple), which yields:

pg_dump -t s -t t -t a -t c -t k -t o -t v -t e -t r -t f -t l -t o -t w
        -f /tmp/dump.sql -p 5434 europe

Because the string itself is being iterated.

This SO question suggests using asserts on the type, but I'm not sure it's Pythonic enough because it breaks the duck-type convention.

Any insights?

Adam

You are referring to a user using ('foo') by mistake instead of ('foo',), right? — orip
– orip, Commented Nov 21, 2010 at 10:53
@orip That's the point: Users might do this mistake, and I want to prevent it from happening. — Adam Matan
– Adam Matan, Commented Nov 21, 2010 at 13:35

orip · Accepted Answer · 2010-11-21 10:52:44Z

6

Asserting the type seems appropriate in this case - handling a common misuse that seems legal because of duck typing.

Another way to handle this common case would be to test for string and handle it correctly as a special case.

Finally, you could encourage passing the table names as positional parameters which would make this scenario less likely:

def pg_dump(*tables, **kwargs):
  file = kwargs['file']
  port = kwargs['port']
  name = kwargs['name']
  ...

pg_dump('stack', 'overflow', file='/tmp/dump.sql', port=5434, name='europe')

answered Nov 21, 2010 at 10:52

orip

76k21 gold badges120 silver badges150 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

Adam Matan Over a year ago

+1 Nice. I think I'll test the parameter, and simply convert a string to a 1-tuple. It would keep the users happier.

Katriel · Accepted Answer · 2010-11-21 12:37:13Z

3

You can use ABCs to assert that an object is iterable but not a string:

from types import StringType
from collections import Iterable
assert isinstance(x, Iterable) and not isinstance(x, StringType)

answered Nov 21, 2010 at 12:37

Katriel

124k19 gold badges141 silver badges172 bronze badges

Comments

martineau · Accepted Answer · 2010-11-21 11:02:10Z

1

A common Python idiom to detect whether an argument is a sequence (a list or tuple) or a string is to check whether it has the __iter__ attribute:

def func(arg):
    if hasattr(arg, '__iter__'):
        print repr(arg), 'has __iter__ attribute'
    else:
        print repr(arg), 'has no __iter__ attribute'

func('abc')
# 'abc' has no __iter__

func(('abc'))
# 'abc' has no __iter__

func(('abc',))
# ('abc',) has __iter__

When it's not a sequence, it's also common to change it into one to simplify the rest of the code (which only has to deal with one kind of thing). In the sample it could have been done with a simple arg = [arg].

answered Nov 21, 2010 at 11:02

martineau

124k29 gold badges180 silver badges319 bronze badges

4 Comments

Jim Brissom Over a year ago

Sidenote: strings not having an __iter__ attribute was an inconsistency and has been changed in Python 3. as it should be.

martineau Over a year ago

@Jim Brissom: I always felt this was inconsistent since strings are after all sequences of characters. Know a good PY3K idiom? How about checking to see if the type(arg) has a string method, like 'lower`?

orip Over a year ago

you can check for not isinstance(foo, str) like suggested in the question the asker linked to (basestring instead of str for Python < 3)

martineau Over a year ago

@orip: Sure, one can always type-check, but as the OP indicated, that doesn't seem very "Pythonic". It would be nice if there was a generic way to check whether something was a sequence or not that was confused by string types -- that what the __iter__ test does in Python 2 but sounds like they "fixed" that in v3.

grifaton · Accepted Answer · 2010-11-21 10:49:53Z

0

Can you not use a list rather than a tuple?

pg_dump( file='/tmp/dump.sql',
         tables=['stack', 'overflow'],
         port=5434,
         name='europe')

answered Nov 21, 2010 at 10:49

grifaton

4,0564 gold badges32 silver badges42 bronze badges

1 Comment

Adam Matan Over a year ago

Doesn't solve the problem - if the user passes a string it still fails.

Germán Rodríguez Herrera · Accepted Answer · 2022-03-07 11:13:42Z

The cleanest way I can think of is to create a new Abstract Collection type "NonStrSequence" by overriding subclasshook. See below implementation and tests:

  from typing import Sequence, ByteString
  from abc import ABC
  class NonStrSequence(ABC):
      @classmethod
      def __subclasshook__(cls, C):
          # not possible to do with AnyStr
          if issubclass(C, (str, ByteString)):
              return NotImplemented
          else:
              return issubclass(C, Sequence)



  tests = {
      'list_of_strs': ['b', 'c'],
      'str': 'abc',
      'bytes': b'bytes',
      'tuple': ([1,2], 'a'),
      'str_in_parens': ('a'), # Not a tuple
      'str_in_tuple': ('a',),
      }
  for type in [Sequence, NonStrSequence]:
      for k,v in tests.items():
          print(f'{k}: isinstance({v}, {type}): {isinstance(v, type)}')

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Pythonic way to verify parameter is a sequence but not string

5 Answers 5

1 Comment

Comments

4 Comments

1 Comment

Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

5 Answers 5

1 Comment

Comments

4 Comments

1 Comment

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related