Running shell command and capturing the output



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








707















I want to write a function that will execute a shell command and return its output as a string, no matter, is it an error or success message. I just want to get the same result that I would have gotten with the command line.



What would be a code example that would do such a thing?



For example:



def run_command(cmd):
# ??????

print run_command('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12')
# Should output something like:
# mysqladmin: CREATE DATABASE failed; error: 'Can't create database 'test'; database exists'









share|improve this question



















  • 2





    related: stackoverflow.com/questions/2924310/…

    – jfs
    Jan 24 '11 at 9:22

















707















I want to write a function that will execute a shell command and return its output as a string, no matter, is it an error or success message. I just want to get the same result that I would have gotten with the command line.



What would be a code example that would do such a thing?



For example:



def run_command(cmd):
# ??????

print run_command('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12')
# Should output something like:
# mysqladmin: CREATE DATABASE failed; error: 'Can't create database 'test'; database exists'









share|improve this question



















  • 2





    related: stackoverflow.com/questions/2924310/…

    – jfs
    Jan 24 '11 at 9:22













707












707








707


249






I want to write a function that will execute a shell command and return its output as a string, no matter, is it an error or success message. I just want to get the same result that I would have gotten with the command line.



What would be a code example that would do such a thing?



For example:



def run_command(cmd):
# ??????

print run_command('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12')
# Should output something like:
# mysqladmin: CREATE DATABASE failed; error: 'Can't create database 'test'; database exists'









share|improve this question
















I want to write a function that will execute a shell command and return its output as a string, no matter, is it an error or success message. I just want to get the same result that I would have gotten with the command line.



What would be a code example that would do such a thing?



For example:



def run_command(cmd):
# ??????

print run_command('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12')
# Should output something like:
# mysqladmin: CREATE DATABASE failed; error: 'Can't create database 'test'; database exists'






python shell subprocess






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 25 '18 at 17:30









martineau

70.5k1093186




70.5k1093186










asked Jan 21 '11 at 14:55









Silver LightSilver Light

20.6k28105149




20.6k28105149







  • 2





    related: stackoverflow.com/questions/2924310/…

    – jfs
    Jan 24 '11 at 9:22












  • 2





    related: stackoverflow.com/questions/2924310/…

    – jfs
    Jan 24 '11 at 9:22







2




2





related: stackoverflow.com/questions/2924310/…

– jfs
Jan 24 '11 at 9:22





related: stackoverflow.com/questions/2924310/…

– jfs
Jan 24 '11 at 9:22












14 Answers
14






active

oldest

votes


















865














The answer to this question depends on the version of Python you're using. The simplest approach is to use the subprocess.check_output function:



>>> subprocess.check_output(['ls', '-l'])
b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


check_output runs a single program that takes only arguments as input.1 It returns the result exactly as printed to stdout. If you need to write input to stdin, skip ahead to the run or Popen sections. If you want to execute complex shell commands, see the note on shell=True at the end of this answer.



The check_output function works on almost all versions of Python still in wide use (2.7+).2 But for more recent versions, it is no longer the recommended approach.



Modern versions of Python (3.5 or higher): run



If you're using Python 3.5 or higher, and do not need backwards compatibility, the new run function is recommended. It provides a very general, high-level API for the subprocess module. To capture the output of a program, pass the subprocess.PIPE flag to the stdout keyword argument. Then access the stdout attribute of the returned CompletedProcess object:



>>> import subprocess
>>> result = subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
>>> result.stdout
b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


The return value is a bytes object, so if you want a proper string, you'll need to decode it. Assuming the called process returns a UTF-8-encoded string:



>>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


This can all be compressed to a one-liner:



>>> subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE).stdout.decode('utf-8')
'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


If you want to pass input to the process's stdin, pass a bytes object to the input keyword argument:



>>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
>>> input = 'foonfoofoon'.encode('utf-8')
>>> result = subprocess.run(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, input=input)
>>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
'foofoon'


You can capture errors by passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE (capture to result.stderr) or stderr=subprocess.STDOUT (capture to result.stdout along with regular output). When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



This adds just a bit of complexity, compared to the old way of doing things. But I think it's worth the payoff: now you can do almost anything you need to do with the run function alone.



Older versions of Python (2.7-3.4): check_output



If you are using an older version of Python, or need modest backwards compatibility, you can probably use the check_output function as briefly described above. It has been available since Python 2.7.



subprocess.check_output(*popenargs, **kwargs) 


It takes takes the same arguments as Popen (see below), and returns a string containing the program's output. The beginning of this answer has a more detailed usage example. In Python 3.5 and greater, check_output is equivalent to executing run with check=True and stdout=PIPE, and returning just the stdout attribute.



You can pass stderr=subprocess.STDOUT to ensure that error messages are included in the returned output -- but in some versions of Python passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE to check_output can cause deadlocks. When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



If you need to pipe from stderr or pass input to the process, check_output won't be up to the task. See the Popen examples below in that case.



Complex applications & legacy versions of Python (2.6 and below): Popen



If you need deep backwards compatibility, or if you need more sophisticated functionality than check_output provides, you'll have to work directly with Popen objects, which encapsulate the low-level API for subprocesses.



The Popen constructor accepts either a single command without arguments, or a list containing a command as its first item, followed by any number of arguments, each as a separate item in the list. shlex.split can help parse strings into appropriately formatted lists. Popen objects also accept a host of different arguments for process IO management and low-level configuration.



To send input and capture output, communicate is almost always the preferred method. As in:



output = subprocess.Popen(["mycmd", "myarg"], 
stdout=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()[0]


Or



>>> import subprocess
>>> p = subprocess.Popen(['ls', '-a'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
... stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
>>> out, err = p.communicate()
>>> print out
.
..
foo


If you set stdin=PIPE, communicate also allows you to pass data to the process via stdin:



>>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
>>> p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
... stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
... stdin=subprocess.PIPE)
>>> out, err = p.communicate('foonfoofoon')
>>> print out
foofoo


Note Aaron Hall's answer, which indicates that on some systems, you may need to set stdout, stderr, and stdin all to PIPE (or DEVNULL) to get communicate to work at all.



In some rare cases, you may need complex, real-time output capturing. Vartec's answer suggests a way forward, but methods other than communicate are prone to deadlocks if not used carefully.



As with all the above functions, when security is not a concern, you can run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True.



Notes



1. Running shell commands: the shell=True argument



Normally, each call to run, check_output, or the Popen constructor executes a single program. That means no fancy bash-style pipes. If you want to run complex shell commands, you can pass shell=True, which all three functions support.



However, doing so raises security concerns. If you're doing anything more than light scripting, you might be better off calling each process separately, and passing the output from each as an input to the next, via



run(cmd, [stdout=etc...], input=other_output)


Or



Popen(cmd, [stdout=etc...]).communicate(other_output)


The temptation to directly connect pipes is strong; resist it. Otherwise, you'll likely see deadlocks or have to do hacky things like this.



2. Unicode considerations



check_output returns a string in Python 2, but a bytes object in Python 3. It's worth taking a moment to learn about unicode if you haven't already.






share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Both with check_output() and communicate() you have to wait until the process is done, with poll() you're getting output as it comes. Really depends what you need.

    – vartec
    Apr 5 '12 at 9:44






  • 2





    Not sure if this only applies to later versions of Python, but the variable out was of type <class 'bytes'> for me. In order to get the output as a string I had to decode it before printing like so: out.decode("utf-8")

    – PolyMesh
    Oct 31 '13 at 19:42







  • 1





    @par That doesn't work for you when you pass shell=True? It works for me. You don't need shlex.split when you pass shell=True. shlex.split is for non-shell commands. I think I'm going to take that bit out because this is muddying the waters.

    – senderle
    Apr 10 '17 at 12:00







  • 1





    I would say this is the canonical answer to the question of "How do I capture subprocess output and support Python 2.x / 3.x?". Certainly compared to the other answers on this question. Nicely done. My only suggestion would be to update the very last link to point to the current 3.6 Python docs for Unicode. If there is a better reference / blog post out there, please share it!

    – Mark Edington
    Apr 15 '17 at 19:18






  • 1





    @FistOfFury, I don't think they do. call can't capture the output, as requested here. check_output is the simplest way to go in Python 3.4, as described above.

    – senderle
    Sep 22 '17 at 13:47


















178














This is way easier, but only works on Unix (including Cygwin).



import commands
print commands.getstatusoutput('wc -l file')


it returns a tuple with the (return_value, output)



This only works in python2.7: it is not available on python3. For a solution that works in both, use the subprocess module instead:



import subprocess
output=subprocess.Popen(["date"],stdout=PIPE)
response=output.communicate()
print response





share|improve this answer




















  • 29





    Deprecated now, but very useful for old python versions without subprocess.check_output

    – static_rtti
    Jun 13 '12 at 8:20






  • 20





    Note that this is Unix-specific. It will for example fail on Windows.

    – Zitrax
    Jan 21 '13 at 9:50






  • 4





    +1 I have to work on ancient version of python 2.4 and this was VERY helpful

    – javadba
    Mar 14 '14 at 22:14






  • 1





    What is PIPE dude come on show the full code: subprocess.PIPE

    – Kyle Bridenstine
    Oct 30 '18 at 15:50












  • @KyleBridenstine you can edit answers.

    – Boris
    Apr 8 at 19:46


















102














Something like that:



def runProcess(exe): 
p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
while(True):
# returns None while subprocess is running
retcode = p.poll()
line = p.stdout.readline()
yield line
if retcode is not None:
break


Note, that I'm redirecting stderr to stdout, it might not be exactly what you want, but I want error messages also.



This function yields line by line as they come (normally you'd have to wait for subprocess to finish to get the output as a whole).



For your case the usage would be:



for line in runProcess('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()):
print line,





share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Thank you for your help! But function goes into an infinite loop for me...

    – Silver Light
    Jan 21 '11 at 15:17






  • 4





    -1: it is an infinite loop the if retcode is 0. The check should be if retcode is not None. You should not yield empty strings (even an empty line is at least one symbol 'n'): if line: yield line. Call p.stdout.close() at the end.

    – jfs
    Jan 24 '11 at 9:37






  • 2





    I tried the code with ls -l /dirname and it breaks after listing two files while there are much more files in the directory

    – Vasilis
    Sep 30 '13 at 20:01






  • 1





    @Vasilis: check similar answer

    – jfs
    Nov 13 '13 at 1:28






  • 3





    @fuenfundachtzig: .readlines() won't return until all output is read and therefore it breaks for large output that does not fit in memory. Also to avoid missing buffered data after the subprocess exited there should be an analog of if retcode is not None: yield from p.stdout.readlines(); break

    – jfs
    Dec 21 '13 at 5:15



















59














Vartec's answer doesn't read all lines, so I made a version that did:



def run_command(command):
p = subprocess.Popen(command,
stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')


Usage is the same as the accepted answer:



command = 'mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()
for line in run_command(command):
print(line)





share|improve this answer




















  • 6





    you could use return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'') instead of the while loop

    – jfs
    Nov 22 '12 at 15:44






  • 1





    That is a pretty cool use of iter, didn't know that! I updated the code.

    – Max Ekman
    Nov 28 '12 at 21:53











  • I'm pretty sure stdout keeps all output, it's a stream object with a buffer. I use a very similar technique to deplete all remaining output after a Popen have completed, and in my case, using poll() and readline during the execution to capture output live also.

    – Max Ekman
    Nov 28 '12 at 21:55











  • I've removed my misleading comment. I can confirm, p.stdout.readline() may return the non-empty previously-buffered output even if the child process have exited already (p.poll() is not None).

    – jfs
    Sep 18 '14 at 3:12











  • This code doesn't work. See here stackoverflow.com/questions/24340877/…

    – thang
    May 3 '15 at 6:00


















41














This is a tricky but super simple solution which works in many situations:



import os
os.system('sample_cmd > tmp')
print open('tmp', 'r').read()


A temporary file(here is tmp) is created with the output of the command and you can read from it your desired output.



Extra note from the comments:
You can remove the tmp file in the case of one-time job. If you need to do this several times, there is no need to delete the tmp.



os.remove('tmp')





share|improve this answer




















  • 3





    Hacky but super simple + works anywhere .. can combine it with mktemp to make it work in threaded situations I guess

    – Prakash Rajagaopal
    Oct 18 '16 at 1:32






  • 2





    Maybe the fastest method, but better add os.remove('tmp') to make it "fileless".

    – XuMuK
    Jul 3 '17 at 16:11












  • @XuMuK You're right in the case of a one-time job. If it is a repetitive work maybe deleting is not necessary

    – Mehdi1902
    Jul 5 '17 at 15:18











  • bad for concurrency, bad for reentrant functions, bad for not leaving the system as it was before it started ( no cleanup )

    – 2mia
    Jul 13 '18 at 12:49







  • 1





    @2mia Obviously it's easy for a reason! If you want to use the file as a kind of shared memory for concurrent reads and writes, this is not a good choice. But, for s.th. like having the output of a command (e.g. ls or find or ...) it can be a good and fast choice. B.t.w. if you need a fast solution for a simple problem it's the best I think. If you need a pipeline, subprocess works for you more efficient.

    – Mehdi1902
    Jul 15 '18 at 6:17


















20














In Python 3.5:



import subprocess

output = subprocess.run("ls -l", shell=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
universal_newlines=True)
print(output.stdout)





share|improve this answer
































    17














    I had the same problem
    But figured out a very simple way of doing this
    follow this



    import subprocess
    output = subprocess.getoutput("ls -l")
    print(output)


    Hope it helps out



    Note: This solution is python3 specific as subprocess.getoutput() don't work in python2






    share|improve this answer




















    • 2





      It returns the output of command as string, as simple as that

      – itz-azhar
      Dec 4 '16 at 7:55






    • 3





      Doesn't work on Python 2

      – Allan Deamon
      Jan 15 '17 at 17:45






    • 1





      Of course, print is a statement on Python 2. You should be able to figure out this is a Python 3 answer.

      – Dev
      Jan 25 '17 at 21:07






    • 2





      @Dev print(s) is valid python 2. subprocess.getoutput is not.

      – user48956
      Apr 27 '17 at 17:46






    • 4





      This should be at the top. I'm sure most people are like me and they're googling this because they just want to make a quick script in python instead of bash. getoutput solves the common case and should be the first result

      – CornSmith
      Nov 12 '18 at 16:19


















    15














    You can use following commands to run any shell command. I have used them on ubuntu.



    import os
    os.popen('your command here').read()





    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      Deprecated since version 2.6 – docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#os.popen

      – Filippo Vitale
      May 26 '17 at 13:28






    • 1





      @FilippoVitale Thanks. I did not know that it is deprecated.

      – Muhammad Hassan
      May 26 '17 at 14:44











    • According to raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/71547/… os.popen() is deprecated in Python 2.6, but it is not deprecated in Python 3.x, since in 3.x it is implemented using subprocess.Popen().

      – J-L
      Aug 13 '18 at 19:07


















    13














    Modern Python solution (>= 3.1):



     res = subprocess.check_output(lcmd, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)





    share|improve this answer


















    • 7





      As the accepted answer says, check_output() is available since Python 2.7.

      – jfs
      Apr 21 '14 at 17:13


















    10














    Your Mileage May Vary, I attempted @senderle's spin on Vartec's solution in Windows on Python 2.6.5, but I was getting errors, and no other solutions worked. My error was: WindowsError: [Error 6] The handle is invalid.



    I found that I had to assign PIPE to every handle to get it to return the output I expected - the following worked for me.



    import subprocess

    def run_command(cmd):
    """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
    return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
    stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
    stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
    stdin=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()


    and call like this, ([0] gets the first element of the tuple, stdout):



    run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')[0]


    After learning more, I believe I need these pipe arguments because I'm working on a custom system that uses different handles, so I had to directly control all the std's.



    To stop console popups (with Windows), do this:



    def run_command(cmd):
    """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
    # instantiate a startupinfo obj:
    startupinfo = subprocess.STARTUPINFO()
    # set the use show window flag, might make conditional on being in Windows:
    startupinfo.dwFlags |= subprocess.STARTF_USESHOWWINDOW
    # pass as the startupinfo keyword argument:
    return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
    stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
    stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
    stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
    startupinfo=startupinfo).communicate()

    run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')





    share|improve this answer




















    • 1





      Interesting -- this must be a Windows thing. I'll add a note pointing to this in case people are getting similar errors.

      – senderle
      May 1 '14 at 14:04











    • use DEVNULL instead of subprocess.PIPE if you don't write/read from a pipe otherwise you may hang the child process.

      – jfs
      Sep 9 '14 at 10:57











    • Sounds like a good tip, @J.F.Sebastian

      – Aaron Hall
      Sep 18 '14 at 1:45


















    8














    I had a slightly different flavor of the same problem with the following requirements:



    1. Capture and return STDOUT messages as they accumulate in the STDOUT buffer (i.e. in realtime).

      • @vartec solved this Pythonically with his use of generators and the 'yield'

        keyword above


    2. Print all STDOUT lines (even if process exits before STDOUT buffer can be fully read)

    3. Don't waste CPU cycles polling the process at high-frequency

    4. Check the return code of the subprocess

    5. Print STDERR (separate from STDOUT) if we get a non-zero error return code.

    I've combined and tweaked previous answers to come up with the following:



    import subprocess
    from time import sleep

    def run_command(command):
    p = subprocess.Popen(command,
    stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
    stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
    shell=True)
    # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
    for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
    if line: # Don't print blank lines
    yield line
    # This ensures the process has completed, AND sets the 'returncode' attr
    while p.poll() is None:
    sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
    # Empty STDERR buffer
    err = p.stderr.read()
    if p.returncode != 0:
    # The run_command() function is responsible for logging STDERR
    print("Error: " + str(err))


    This code would be executed the same as previous answers:



    for line in run_command(cmd):
    print(line)





    share|improve this answer

























    • Do you mind explaining how the addition of sleep(.1) won't waste CPU cycles?

      – Moataz Elmasry
      Aug 2 '17 at 9:41






    • 1





      If we continued to call p.poll() without any sleep in between calls, we would waste CPU cycles by calling this function millions of times. Instead, we "throttle" our loop by telling the OS that we don't need to be bothered for the next 1/10th second, so it can carry out other tasks. (It's possible that p.poll() sleeps too, making our sleep statement redundant).

      – The Aelfinn
      Aug 2 '17 at 11:04


















    2














    If you need to run a shell command on multiple files, this did the trick for me.



    import os
    import subprocess

    # Define a function for running commands and capturing stdout line by line
    # (Modified from Vartec's solution because it wasn't printing all lines)
    def runProcess(exe):
    p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
    return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')

    # Get all filenames in working directory
    for filename in os.listdir('./'):
    # This command will be run on each file
    cmd = 'nm ' + filename

    # Run the command and capture the output line by line.
    for line in runProcess(cmd.split()):
    # Eliminate leading and trailing whitespace
    line.strip()
    # Split the output
    output = line.split()

    # Filter the output and print relevant lines
    if len(output) > 2:
    if ((output[2] == 'set_program_name')):
    print filename
    print line


    Edit: Just saw Max Persson's solution with J.F. Sebastian's suggestion. Went ahead and incorporated that.






    share|improve this answer






























      1














      Splitting the initial command for the subprocess might be tricky and cumbersome.



      Use shlex.split to help yourself out.



      Sample command



      git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"



      The code



      from subprocess import check_output
      from shlex import split

      res = check_output(split('git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"'))
      print(res)
      >>> b'commit 7696ab087a163e084d6870bb4e5e4d4198bdc61anAuthor: Artur Barseghyan...'





      share|improve this answer






























        0














        eg, execute('ls -ahl')
        differentiated three/four possible returns and OS platforms:



        1. no output, but run successfully

        2. output empty line, run successfully

        3. run failed

        4. output something, run successfully

        function below



        def execute(cmd, output=True, DEBUG_MODE=False):
        """Executes a bash command.
        (cmd, output=True)
        output: whether print shell output to screen, only affects screen display, does not affect returned values
        return: ...regardless of output=True/False...
        returns shell output as a list with each elment is a line of string (whitespace stripped both sides) from output
        could be
        , ie, len()=0 --> no output;
        [''] --> output empty line;
        None --> error occured, see below

        if error ocurs, returns None (ie, is None), print out the error message to screen
        """
        if not DEBUG_MODE:
        print "Command: " + cmd

        # https://stackoverflow.com/a/40139101/2292993
        def _execute_cmd(cmd):
        if os.name == 'nt' or platform.system() == 'Windows':
        # set stdin, out, err all to PIPE to get results (other than None) after run the Popen() instance
        p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)
        else:
        # Use bash; the default is sh
        p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True, executable="/bin/bash")

        # the Popen() instance starts running once instantiated (??)
        # additionally, communicate(), or poll() and wait process to terminate
        # communicate() accepts optional input as stdin to the pipe (requires setting stdin=subprocess.PIPE above), return out, err as tuple
        # if communicate(), the results are buffered in memory

        # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
        # if error occurs, the stdout is '', which means the below loop is essentially skipped
        # A prefix of 'b' or 'B' is ignored in Python 2;
        # it indicates that the literal should become a bytes literal in Python 3
        # (e.g. when code is automatically converted with 2to3).
        # return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')
        for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
        # # Windows has rn, Unix has n, Old mac has r
        # if line not in ['','n','r','rn']: # Don't print blank lines
        yield line
        while p.poll() is None:
        sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
        # Empty STDERR buffer
        err = p.stderr.read()
        if p.returncode != 0:
        # responsible for logging STDERR
        print("Error: " + str(err))
        yield None

        out =
        for line in _execute_cmd(cmd):
        # error did not occur earlier
        if line is not None:
        # trailing comma to avoid a newline (by print itself) being printed
        if output: print line,
        out.append(line.strip())
        else:
        # error occured earlier
        out = None
        return out
        else:
        print "Simulation! The command is " + cmd
        print ""





        share|improve this answer























          protected by jfs Dec 28 '14 at 12:47



          Thank you for your interest in this question.
          Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



          Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














          14 Answers
          14






          active

          oldest

          votes








          14 Answers
          14






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          865














          The answer to this question depends on the version of Python you're using. The simplest approach is to use the subprocess.check_output function:



          >>> subprocess.check_output(['ls', '-l'])
          b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          check_output runs a single program that takes only arguments as input.1 It returns the result exactly as printed to stdout. If you need to write input to stdin, skip ahead to the run or Popen sections. If you want to execute complex shell commands, see the note on shell=True at the end of this answer.



          The check_output function works on almost all versions of Python still in wide use (2.7+).2 But for more recent versions, it is no longer the recommended approach.



          Modern versions of Python (3.5 or higher): run



          If you're using Python 3.5 or higher, and do not need backwards compatibility, the new run function is recommended. It provides a very general, high-level API for the subprocess module. To capture the output of a program, pass the subprocess.PIPE flag to the stdout keyword argument. Then access the stdout attribute of the returned CompletedProcess object:



          >>> import subprocess
          >>> result = subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> result.stdout
          b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          The return value is a bytes object, so if you want a proper string, you'll need to decode it. Assuming the called process returns a UTF-8-encoded string:



          >>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          This can all be compressed to a one-liner:



          >>> subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE).stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          If you want to pass input to the process's stdin, pass a bytes object to the input keyword argument:



          >>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
          >>> input = 'foonfoofoon'.encode('utf-8')
          >>> result = subprocess.run(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, input=input)
          >>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'foofoon'


          You can capture errors by passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE (capture to result.stderr) or stderr=subprocess.STDOUT (capture to result.stdout along with regular output). When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



          This adds just a bit of complexity, compared to the old way of doing things. But I think it's worth the payoff: now you can do almost anything you need to do with the run function alone.



          Older versions of Python (2.7-3.4): check_output



          If you are using an older version of Python, or need modest backwards compatibility, you can probably use the check_output function as briefly described above. It has been available since Python 2.7.



          subprocess.check_output(*popenargs, **kwargs) 


          It takes takes the same arguments as Popen (see below), and returns a string containing the program's output. The beginning of this answer has a more detailed usage example. In Python 3.5 and greater, check_output is equivalent to executing run with check=True and stdout=PIPE, and returning just the stdout attribute.



          You can pass stderr=subprocess.STDOUT to ensure that error messages are included in the returned output -- but in some versions of Python passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE to check_output can cause deadlocks. When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



          If you need to pipe from stderr or pass input to the process, check_output won't be up to the task. See the Popen examples below in that case.



          Complex applications & legacy versions of Python (2.6 and below): Popen



          If you need deep backwards compatibility, or if you need more sophisticated functionality than check_output provides, you'll have to work directly with Popen objects, which encapsulate the low-level API for subprocesses.



          The Popen constructor accepts either a single command without arguments, or a list containing a command as its first item, followed by any number of arguments, each as a separate item in the list. shlex.split can help parse strings into appropriately formatted lists. Popen objects also accept a host of different arguments for process IO management and low-level configuration.



          To send input and capture output, communicate is almost always the preferred method. As in:



          output = subprocess.Popen(["mycmd", "myarg"], 
          stdout=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()[0]


          Or



          >>> import subprocess
          >>> p = subprocess.Popen(['ls', '-a'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> out, err = p.communicate()
          >>> print out
          .
          ..
          foo


          If you set stdin=PIPE, communicate also allows you to pass data to the process via stdin:



          >>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
          >>> p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stdin=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> out, err = p.communicate('foonfoofoon')
          >>> print out
          foofoo


          Note Aaron Hall's answer, which indicates that on some systems, you may need to set stdout, stderr, and stdin all to PIPE (or DEVNULL) to get communicate to work at all.



          In some rare cases, you may need complex, real-time output capturing. Vartec's answer suggests a way forward, but methods other than communicate are prone to deadlocks if not used carefully.



          As with all the above functions, when security is not a concern, you can run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True.



          Notes



          1. Running shell commands: the shell=True argument



          Normally, each call to run, check_output, or the Popen constructor executes a single program. That means no fancy bash-style pipes. If you want to run complex shell commands, you can pass shell=True, which all three functions support.



          However, doing so raises security concerns. If you're doing anything more than light scripting, you might be better off calling each process separately, and passing the output from each as an input to the next, via



          run(cmd, [stdout=etc...], input=other_output)


          Or



          Popen(cmd, [stdout=etc...]).communicate(other_output)


          The temptation to directly connect pipes is strong; resist it. Otherwise, you'll likely see deadlocks or have to do hacky things like this.



          2. Unicode considerations



          check_output returns a string in Python 2, but a bytes object in Python 3. It's worth taking a moment to learn about unicode if you haven't already.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            Both with check_output() and communicate() you have to wait until the process is done, with poll() you're getting output as it comes. Really depends what you need.

            – vartec
            Apr 5 '12 at 9:44






          • 2





            Not sure if this only applies to later versions of Python, but the variable out was of type <class 'bytes'> for me. In order to get the output as a string I had to decode it before printing like so: out.decode("utf-8")

            – PolyMesh
            Oct 31 '13 at 19:42







          • 1





            @par That doesn't work for you when you pass shell=True? It works for me. You don't need shlex.split when you pass shell=True. shlex.split is for non-shell commands. I think I'm going to take that bit out because this is muddying the waters.

            – senderle
            Apr 10 '17 at 12:00







          • 1





            I would say this is the canonical answer to the question of "How do I capture subprocess output and support Python 2.x / 3.x?". Certainly compared to the other answers on this question. Nicely done. My only suggestion would be to update the very last link to point to the current 3.6 Python docs for Unicode. If there is a better reference / blog post out there, please share it!

            – Mark Edington
            Apr 15 '17 at 19:18






          • 1





            @FistOfFury, I don't think they do. call can't capture the output, as requested here. check_output is the simplest way to go in Python 3.4, as described above.

            – senderle
            Sep 22 '17 at 13:47















          865














          The answer to this question depends on the version of Python you're using. The simplest approach is to use the subprocess.check_output function:



          >>> subprocess.check_output(['ls', '-l'])
          b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          check_output runs a single program that takes only arguments as input.1 It returns the result exactly as printed to stdout. If you need to write input to stdin, skip ahead to the run or Popen sections. If you want to execute complex shell commands, see the note on shell=True at the end of this answer.



          The check_output function works on almost all versions of Python still in wide use (2.7+).2 But for more recent versions, it is no longer the recommended approach.



          Modern versions of Python (3.5 or higher): run



          If you're using Python 3.5 or higher, and do not need backwards compatibility, the new run function is recommended. It provides a very general, high-level API for the subprocess module. To capture the output of a program, pass the subprocess.PIPE flag to the stdout keyword argument. Then access the stdout attribute of the returned CompletedProcess object:



          >>> import subprocess
          >>> result = subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> result.stdout
          b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          The return value is a bytes object, so if you want a proper string, you'll need to decode it. Assuming the called process returns a UTF-8-encoded string:



          >>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          This can all be compressed to a one-liner:



          >>> subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE).stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          If you want to pass input to the process's stdin, pass a bytes object to the input keyword argument:



          >>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
          >>> input = 'foonfoofoon'.encode('utf-8')
          >>> result = subprocess.run(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, input=input)
          >>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'foofoon'


          You can capture errors by passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE (capture to result.stderr) or stderr=subprocess.STDOUT (capture to result.stdout along with regular output). When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



          This adds just a bit of complexity, compared to the old way of doing things. But I think it's worth the payoff: now you can do almost anything you need to do with the run function alone.



          Older versions of Python (2.7-3.4): check_output



          If you are using an older version of Python, or need modest backwards compatibility, you can probably use the check_output function as briefly described above. It has been available since Python 2.7.



          subprocess.check_output(*popenargs, **kwargs) 


          It takes takes the same arguments as Popen (see below), and returns a string containing the program's output. The beginning of this answer has a more detailed usage example. In Python 3.5 and greater, check_output is equivalent to executing run with check=True and stdout=PIPE, and returning just the stdout attribute.



          You can pass stderr=subprocess.STDOUT to ensure that error messages are included in the returned output -- but in some versions of Python passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE to check_output can cause deadlocks. When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



          If you need to pipe from stderr or pass input to the process, check_output won't be up to the task. See the Popen examples below in that case.



          Complex applications & legacy versions of Python (2.6 and below): Popen



          If you need deep backwards compatibility, or if you need more sophisticated functionality than check_output provides, you'll have to work directly with Popen objects, which encapsulate the low-level API for subprocesses.



          The Popen constructor accepts either a single command without arguments, or a list containing a command as its first item, followed by any number of arguments, each as a separate item in the list. shlex.split can help parse strings into appropriately formatted lists. Popen objects also accept a host of different arguments for process IO management and low-level configuration.



          To send input and capture output, communicate is almost always the preferred method. As in:



          output = subprocess.Popen(["mycmd", "myarg"], 
          stdout=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()[0]


          Or



          >>> import subprocess
          >>> p = subprocess.Popen(['ls', '-a'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> out, err = p.communicate()
          >>> print out
          .
          ..
          foo


          If you set stdin=PIPE, communicate also allows you to pass data to the process via stdin:



          >>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
          >>> p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stdin=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> out, err = p.communicate('foonfoofoon')
          >>> print out
          foofoo


          Note Aaron Hall's answer, which indicates that on some systems, you may need to set stdout, stderr, and stdin all to PIPE (or DEVNULL) to get communicate to work at all.



          In some rare cases, you may need complex, real-time output capturing. Vartec's answer suggests a way forward, but methods other than communicate are prone to deadlocks if not used carefully.



          As with all the above functions, when security is not a concern, you can run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True.



          Notes



          1. Running shell commands: the shell=True argument



          Normally, each call to run, check_output, or the Popen constructor executes a single program. That means no fancy bash-style pipes. If you want to run complex shell commands, you can pass shell=True, which all three functions support.



          However, doing so raises security concerns. If you're doing anything more than light scripting, you might be better off calling each process separately, and passing the output from each as an input to the next, via



          run(cmd, [stdout=etc...], input=other_output)


          Or



          Popen(cmd, [stdout=etc...]).communicate(other_output)


          The temptation to directly connect pipes is strong; resist it. Otherwise, you'll likely see deadlocks or have to do hacky things like this.



          2. Unicode considerations



          check_output returns a string in Python 2, but a bytes object in Python 3. It's worth taking a moment to learn about unicode if you haven't already.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            Both with check_output() and communicate() you have to wait until the process is done, with poll() you're getting output as it comes. Really depends what you need.

            – vartec
            Apr 5 '12 at 9:44






          • 2





            Not sure if this only applies to later versions of Python, but the variable out was of type <class 'bytes'> for me. In order to get the output as a string I had to decode it before printing like so: out.decode("utf-8")

            – PolyMesh
            Oct 31 '13 at 19:42







          • 1





            @par That doesn't work for you when you pass shell=True? It works for me. You don't need shlex.split when you pass shell=True. shlex.split is for non-shell commands. I think I'm going to take that bit out because this is muddying the waters.

            – senderle
            Apr 10 '17 at 12:00







          • 1





            I would say this is the canonical answer to the question of "How do I capture subprocess output and support Python 2.x / 3.x?". Certainly compared to the other answers on this question. Nicely done. My only suggestion would be to update the very last link to point to the current 3.6 Python docs for Unicode. If there is a better reference / blog post out there, please share it!

            – Mark Edington
            Apr 15 '17 at 19:18






          • 1





            @FistOfFury, I don't think they do. call can't capture the output, as requested here. check_output is the simplest way to go in Python 3.4, as described above.

            – senderle
            Sep 22 '17 at 13:47













          865












          865








          865







          The answer to this question depends on the version of Python you're using. The simplest approach is to use the subprocess.check_output function:



          >>> subprocess.check_output(['ls', '-l'])
          b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          check_output runs a single program that takes only arguments as input.1 It returns the result exactly as printed to stdout. If you need to write input to stdin, skip ahead to the run or Popen sections. If you want to execute complex shell commands, see the note on shell=True at the end of this answer.



          The check_output function works on almost all versions of Python still in wide use (2.7+).2 But for more recent versions, it is no longer the recommended approach.



          Modern versions of Python (3.5 or higher): run



          If you're using Python 3.5 or higher, and do not need backwards compatibility, the new run function is recommended. It provides a very general, high-level API for the subprocess module. To capture the output of a program, pass the subprocess.PIPE flag to the stdout keyword argument. Then access the stdout attribute of the returned CompletedProcess object:



          >>> import subprocess
          >>> result = subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> result.stdout
          b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          The return value is a bytes object, so if you want a proper string, you'll need to decode it. Assuming the called process returns a UTF-8-encoded string:



          >>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          This can all be compressed to a one-liner:



          >>> subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE).stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          If you want to pass input to the process's stdin, pass a bytes object to the input keyword argument:



          >>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
          >>> input = 'foonfoofoon'.encode('utf-8')
          >>> result = subprocess.run(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, input=input)
          >>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'foofoon'


          You can capture errors by passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE (capture to result.stderr) or stderr=subprocess.STDOUT (capture to result.stdout along with regular output). When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



          This adds just a bit of complexity, compared to the old way of doing things. But I think it's worth the payoff: now you can do almost anything you need to do with the run function alone.



          Older versions of Python (2.7-3.4): check_output



          If you are using an older version of Python, or need modest backwards compatibility, you can probably use the check_output function as briefly described above. It has been available since Python 2.7.



          subprocess.check_output(*popenargs, **kwargs) 


          It takes takes the same arguments as Popen (see below), and returns a string containing the program's output. The beginning of this answer has a more detailed usage example. In Python 3.5 and greater, check_output is equivalent to executing run with check=True and stdout=PIPE, and returning just the stdout attribute.



          You can pass stderr=subprocess.STDOUT to ensure that error messages are included in the returned output -- but in some versions of Python passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE to check_output can cause deadlocks. When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



          If you need to pipe from stderr or pass input to the process, check_output won't be up to the task. See the Popen examples below in that case.



          Complex applications & legacy versions of Python (2.6 and below): Popen



          If you need deep backwards compatibility, or if you need more sophisticated functionality than check_output provides, you'll have to work directly with Popen objects, which encapsulate the low-level API for subprocesses.



          The Popen constructor accepts either a single command without arguments, or a list containing a command as its first item, followed by any number of arguments, each as a separate item in the list. shlex.split can help parse strings into appropriately formatted lists. Popen objects also accept a host of different arguments for process IO management and low-level configuration.



          To send input and capture output, communicate is almost always the preferred method. As in:



          output = subprocess.Popen(["mycmd", "myarg"], 
          stdout=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()[0]


          Or



          >>> import subprocess
          >>> p = subprocess.Popen(['ls', '-a'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> out, err = p.communicate()
          >>> print out
          .
          ..
          foo


          If you set stdin=PIPE, communicate also allows you to pass data to the process via stdin:



          >>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
          >>> p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stdin=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> out, err = p.communicate('foonfoofoon')
          >>> print out
          foofoo


          Note Aaron Hall's answer, which indicates that on some systems, you may need to set stdout, stderr, and stdin all to PIPE (or DEVNULL) to get communicate to work at all.



          In some rare cases, you may need complex, real-time output capturing. Vartec's answer suggests a way forward, but methods other than communicate are prone to deadlocks if not used carefully.



          As with all the above functions, when security is not a concern, you can run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True.



          Notes



          1. Running shell commands: the shell=True argument



          Normally, each call to run, check_output, or the Popen constructor executes a single program. That means no fancy bash-style pipes. If you want to run complex shell commands, you can pass shell=True, which all three functions support.



          However, doing so raises security concerns. If you're doing anything more than light scripting, you might be better off calling each process separately, and passing the output from each as an input to the next, via



          run(cmd, [stdout=etc...], input=other_output)


          Or



          Popen(cmd, [stdout=etc...]).communicate(other_output)


          The temptation to directly connect pipes is strong; resist it. Otherwise, you'll likely see deadlocks or have to do hacky things like this.



          2. Unicode considerations



          check_output returns a string in Python 2, but a bytes object in Python 3. It's worth taking a moment to learn about unicode if you haven't already.






          share|improve this answer















          The answer to this question depends on the version of Python you're using. The simplest approach is to use the subprocess.check_output function:



          >>> subprocess.check_output(['ls', '-l'])
          b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          check_output runs a single program that takes only arguments as input.1 It returns the result exactly as printed to stdout. If you need to write input to stdin, skip ahead to the run or Popen sections. If you want to execute complex shell commands, see the note on shell=True at the end of this answer.



          The check_output function works on almost all versions of Python still in wide use (2.7+).2 But for more recent versions, it is no longer the recommended approach.



          Modern versions of Python (3.5 or higher): run



          If you're using Python 3.5 or higher, and do not need backwards compatibility, the new run function is recommended. It provides a very general, high-level API for the subprocess module. To capture the output of a program, pass the subprocess.PIPE flag to the stdout keyword argument. Then access the stdout attribute of the returned CompletedProcess object:



          >>> import subprocess
          >>> result = subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> result.stdout
          b'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          The return value is a bytes object, so if you want a proper string, you'll need to decode it. Assuming the called process returns a UTF-8-encoded string:



          >>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          This can all be compressed to a one-liner:



          >>> subprocess.run(['ls', '-l'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE).stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'total 0n-rw-r--r-- 1 memyself staff 0 Mar 14 11:04 filesn'


          If you want to pass input to the process's stdin, pass a bytes object to the input keyword argument:



          >>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
          >>> input = 'foonfoofoon'.encode('utf-8')
          >>> result = subprocess.run(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, input=input)
          >>> result.stdout.decode('utf-8')
          'foofoon'


          You can capture errors by passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE (capture to result.stderr) or stderr=subprocess.STDOUT (capture to result.stdout along with regular output). When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



          This adds just a bit of complexity, compared to the old way of doing things. But I think it's worth the payoff: now you can do almost anything you need to do with the run function alone.



          Older versions of Python (2.7-3.4): check_output



          If you are using an older version of Python, or need modest backwards compatibility, you can probably use the check_output function as briefly described above. It has been available since Python 2.7.



          subprocess.check_output(*popenargs, **kwargs) 


          It takes takes the same arguments as Popen (see below), and returns a string containing the program's output. The beginning of this answer has a more detailed usage example. In Python 3.5 and greater, check_output is equivalent to executing run with check=True and stdout=PIPE, and returning just the stdout attribute.



          You can pass stderr=subprocess.STDOUT to ensure that error messages are included in the returned output -- but in some versions of Python passing stderr=subprocess.PIPE to check_output can cause deadlocks. When security is not a concern, you can also run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True as described in the notes below.



          If you need to pipe from stderr or pass input to the process, check_output won't be up to the task. See the Popen examples below in that case.



          Complex applications & legacy versions of Python (2.6 and below): Popen



          If you need deep backwards compatibility, or if you need more sophisticated functionality than check_output provides, you'll have to work directly with Popen objects, which encapsulate the low-level API for subprocesses.



          The Popen constructor accepts either a single command without arguments, or a list containing a command as its first item, followed by any number of arguments, each as a separate item in the list. shlex.split can help parse strings into appropriately formatted lists. Popen objects also accept a host of different arguments for process IO management and low-level configuration.



          To send input and capture output, communicate is almost always the preferred method. As in:



          output = subprocess.Popen(["mycmd", "myarg"], 
          stdout=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()[0]


          Or



          >>> import subprocess
          >>> p = subprocess.Popen(['ls', '-a'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> out, err = p.communicate()
          >>> print out
          .
          ..
          foo


          If you set stdin=PIPE, communicate also allows you to pass data to the process via stdin:



          >>> cmd = ['awk', 'length($0) > 5']
          >>> p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
          ... stdin=subprocess.PIPE)
          >>> out, err = p.communicate('foonfoofoon')
          >>> print out
          foofoo


          Note Aaron Hall's answer, which indicates that on some systems, you may need to set stdout, stderr, and stdin all to PIPE (or DEVNULL) to get communicate to work at all.



          In some rare cases, you may need complex, real-time output capturing. Vartec's answer suggests a way forward, but methods other than communicate are prone to deadlocks if not used carefully.



          As with all the above functions, when security is not a concern, you can run more complex shell commands by passing shell=True.



          Notes



          1. Running shell commands: the shell=True argument



          Normally, each call to run, check_output, or the Popen constructor executes a single program. That means no fancy bash-style pipes. If you want to run complex shell commands, you can pass shell=True, which all three functions support.



          However, doing so raises security concerns. If you're doing anything more than light scripting, you might be better off calling each process separately, and passing the output from each as an input to the next, via



          run(cmd, [stdout=etc...], input=other_output)


          Or



          Popen(cmd, [stdout=etc...]).communicate(other_output)


          The temptation to directly connect pipes is strong; resist it. Otherwise, you'll likely see deadlocks or have to do hacky things like this.



          2. Unicode considerations



          check_output returns a string in Python 2, but a bytes object in Python 3. It's worth taking a moment to learn about unicode if you haven't already.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 10 at 20:06

























          answered Jan 21 '11 at 15:27









          senderlesenderle

          95.2k21170194




          95.2k21170194







          • 3





            Both with check_output() and communicate() you have to wait until the process is done, with poll() you're getting output as it comes. Really depends what you need.

            – vartec
            Apr 5 '12 at 9:44






          • 2





            Not sure if this only applies to later versions of Python, but the variable out was of type <class 'bytes'> for me. In order to get the output as a string I had to decode it before printing like so: out.decode("utf-8")

            – PolyMesh
            Oct 31 '13 at 19:42







          • 1





            @par That doesn't work for you when you pass shell=True? It works for me. You don't need shlex.split when you pass shell=True. shlex.split is for non-shell commands. I think I'm going to take that bit out because this is muddying the waters.

            – senderle
            Apr 10 '17 at 12:00







          • 1





            I would say this is the canonical answer to the question of "How do I capture subprocess output and support Python 2.x / 3.x?". Certainly compared to the other answers on this question. Nicely done. My only suggestion would be to update the very last link to point to the current 3.6 Python docs for Unicode. If there is a better reference / blog post out there, please share it!

            – Mark Edington
            Apr 15 '17 at 19:18






          • 1





            @FistOfFury, I don't think they do. call can't capture the output, as requested here. check_output is the simplest way to go in Python 3.4, as described above.

            – senderle
            Sep 22 '17 at 13:47












          • 3





            Both with check_output() and communicate() you have to wait until the process is done, with poll() you're getting output as it comes. Really depends what you need.

            – vartec
            Apr 5 '12 at 9:44






          • 2





            Not sure if this only applies to later versions of Python, but the variable out was of type <class 'bytes'> for me. In order to get the output as a string I had to decode it before printing like so: out.decode("utf-8")

            – PolyMesh
            Oct 31 '13 at 19:42







          • 1





            @par That doesn't work for you when you pass shell=True? It works for me. You don't need shlex.split when you pass shell=True. shlex.split is for non-shell commands. I think I'm going to take that bit out because this is muddying the waters.

            – senderle
            Apr 10 '17 at 12:00







          • 1





            I would say this is the canonical answer to the question of "How do I capture subprocess output and support Python 2.x / 3.x?". Certainly compared to the other answers on this question. Nicely done. My only suggestion would be to update the very last link to point to the current 3.6 Python docs for Unicode. If there is a better reference / blog post out there, please share it!

            – Mark Edington
            Apr 15 '17 at 19:18






          • 1





            @FistOfFury, I don't think they do. call can't capture the output, as requested here. check_output is the simplest way to go in Python 3.4, as described above.

            – senderle
            Sep 22 '17 at 13:47







          3




          3





          Both with check_output() and communicate() you have to wait until the process is done, with poll() you're getting output as it comes. Really depends what you need.

          – vartec
          Apr 5 '12 at 9:44





          Both with check_output() and communicate() you have to wait until the process is done, with poll() you're getting output as it comes. Really depends what you need.

          – vartec
          Apr 5 '12 at 9:44




          2




          2





          Not sure if this only applies to later versions of Python, but the variable out was of type <class 'bytes'> for me. In order to get the output as a string I had to decode it before printing like so: out.decode("utf-8")

          – PolyMesh
          Oct 31 '13 at 19:42






          Not sure if this only applies to later versions of Python, but the variable out was of type <class 'bytes'> for me. In order to get the output as a string I had to decode it before printing like so: out.decode("utf-8")

          – PolyMesh
          Oct 31 '13 at 19:42





          1




          1





          @par That doesn't work for you when you pass shell=True? It works for me. You don't need shlex.split when you pass shell=True. shlex.split is for non-shell commands. I think I'm going to take that bit out because this is muddying the waters.

          – senderle
          Apr 10 '17 at 12:00






          @par That doesn't work for you when you pass shell=True? It works for me. You don't need shlex.split when you pass shell=True. shlex.split is for non-shell commands. I think I'm going to take that bit out because this is muddying the waters.

          – senderle
          Apr 10 '17 at 12:00





          1




          1





          I would say this is the canonical answer to the question of "How do I capture subprocess output and support Python 2.x / 3.x?". Certainly compared to the other answers on this question. Nicely done. My only suggestion would be to update the very last link to point to the current 3.6 Python docs for Unicode. If there is a better reference / blog post out there, please share it!

          – Mark Edington
          Apr 15 '17 at 19:18





          I would say this is the canonical answer to the question of "How do I capture subprocess output and support Python 2.x / 3.x?". Certainly compared to the other answers on this question. Nicely done. My only suggestion would be to update the very last link to point to the current 3.6 Python docs for Unicode. If there is a better reference / blog post out there, please share it!

          – Mark Edington
          Apr 15 '17 at 19:18




          1




          1





          @FistOfFury, I don't think they do. call can't capture the output, as requested here. check_output is the simplest way to go in Python 3.4, as described above.

          – senderle
          Sep 22 '17 at 13:47





          @FistOfFury, I don't think they do. call can't capture the output, as requested here. check_output is the simplest way to go in Python 3.4, as described above.

          – senderle
          Sep 22 '17 at 13:47













          178














          This is way easier, but only works on Unix (including Cygwin).



          import commands
          print commands.getstatusoutput('wc -l file')


          it returns a tuple with the (return_value, output)



          This only works in python2.7: it is not available on python3. For a solution that works in both, use the subprocess module instead:



          import subprocess
          output=subprocess.Popen(["date"],stdout=PIPE)
          response=output.communicate()
          print response





          share|improve this answer




















          • 29





            Deprecated now, but very useful for old python versions without subprocess.check_output

            – static_rtti
            Jun 13 '12 at 8:20






          • 20





            Note that this is Unix-specific. It will for example fail on Windows.

            – Zitrax
            Jan 21 '13 at 9:50






          • 4





            +1 I have to work on ancient version of python 2.4 and this was VERY helpful

            – javadba
            Mar 14 '14 at 22:14






          • 1





            What is PIPE dude come on show the full code: subprocess.PIPE

            – Kyle Bridenstine
            Oct 30 '18 at 15:50












          • @KyleBridenstine you can edit answers.

            – Boris
            Apr 8 at 19:46















          178














          This is way easier, but only works on Unix (including Cygwin).



          import commands
          print commands.getstatusoutput('wc -l file')


          it returns a tuple with the (return_value, output)



          This only works in python2.7: it is not available on python3. For a solution that works in both, use the subprocess module instead:



          import subprocess
          output=subprocess.Popen(["date"],stdout=PIPE)
          response=output.communicate()
          print response





          share|improve this answer




















          • 29





            Deprecated now, but very useful for old python versions without subprocess.check_output

            – static_rtti
            Jun 13 '12 at 8:20






          • 20





            Note that this is Unix-specific. It will for example fail on Windows.

            – Zitrax
            Jan 21 '13 at 9:50






          • 4





            +1 I have to work on ancient version of python 2.4 and this was VERY helpful

            – javadba
            Mar 14 '14 at 22:14






          • 1





            What is PIPE dude come on show the full code: subprocess.PIPE

            – Kyle Bridenstine
            Oct 30 '18 at 15:50












          • @KyleBridenstine you can edit answers.

            – Boris
            Apr 8 at 19:46













          178












          178








          178







          This is way easier, but only works on Unix (including Cygwin).



          import commands
          print commands.getstatusoutput('wc -l file')


          it returns a tuple with the (return_value, output)



          This only works in python2.7: it is not available on python3. For a solution that works in both, use the subprocess module instead:



          import subprocess
          output=subprocess.Popen(["date"],stdout=PIPE)
          response=output.communicate()
          print response





          share|improve this answer















          This is way easier, but only works on Unix (including Cygwin).



          import commands
          print commands.getstatusoutput('wc -l file')


          it returns a tuple with the (return_value, output)



          This only works in python2.7: it is not available on python3. For a solution that works in both, use the subprocess module instead:



          import subprocess
          output=subprocess.Popen(["date"],stdout=PIPE)
          response=output.communicate()
          print response






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Oct 8 '18 at 17:32









          NickD

          2,48211123




          2,48211123










          answered Feb 13 '12 at 19:41









          byte_arraybyte_array

          2,3561118




          2,3561118







          • 29





            Deprecated now, but very useful for old python versions without subprocess.check_output

            – static_rtti
            Jun 13 '12 at 8:20






          • 20





            Note that this is Unix-specific. It will for example fail on Windows.

            – Zitrax
            Jan 21 '13 at 9:50






          • 4





            +1 I have to work on ancient version of python 2.4 and this was VERY helpful

            – javadba
            Mar 14 '14 at 22:14






          • 1





            What is PIPE dude come on show the full code: subprocess.PIPE

            – Kyle Bridenstine
            Oct 30 '18 at 15:50












          • @KyleBridenstine you can edit answers.

            – Boris
            Apr 8 at 19:46












          • 29





            Deprecated now, but very useful for old python versions without subprocess.check_output

            – static_rtti
            Jun 13 '12 at 8:20






          • 20





            Note that this is Unix-specific. It will for example fail on Windows.

            – Zitrax
            Jan 21 '13 at 9:50






          • 4





            +1 I have to work on ancient version of python 2.4 and this was VERY helpful

            – javadba
            Mar 14 '14 at 22:14






          • 1





            What is PIPE dude come on show the full code: subprocess.PIPE

            – Kyle Bridenstine
            Oct 30 '18 at 15:50












          • @KyleBridenstine you can edit answers.

            – Boris
            Apr 8 at 19:46







          29




          29





          Deprecated now, but very useful for old python versions without subprocess.check_output

          – static_rtti
          Jun 13 '12 at 8:20





          Deprecated now, but very useful for old python versions without subprocess.check_output

          – static_rtti
          Jun 13 '12 at 8:20




          20




          20





          Note that this is Unix-specific. It will for example fail on Windows.

          – Zitrax
          Jan 21 '13 at 9:50





          Note that this is Unix-specific. It will for example fail on Windows.

          – Zitrax
          Jan 21 '13 at 9:50




          4




          4





          +1 I have to work on ancient version of python 2.4 and this was VERY helpful

          – javadba
          Mar 14 '14 at 22:14





          +1 I have to work on ancient version of python 2.4 and this was VERY helpful

          – javadba
          Mar 14 '14 at 22:14




          1




          1





          What is PIPE dude come on show the full code: subprocess.PIPE

          – Kyle Bridenstine
          Oct 30 '18 at 15:50






          What is PIPE dude come on show the full code: subprocess.PIPE

          – Kyle Bridenstine
          Oct 30 '18 at 15:50














          @KyleBridenstine you can edit answers.

          – Boris
          Apr 8 at 19:46





          @KyleBridenstine you can edit answers.

          – Boris
          Apr 8 at 19:46











          102














          Something like that:



          def runProcess(exe): 
          p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
          while(True):
          # returns None while subprocess is running
          retcode = p.poll()
          line = p.stdout.readline()
          yield line
          if retcode is not None:
          break


          Note, that I'm redirecting stderr to stdout, it might not be exactly what you want, but I want error messages also.



          This function yields line by line as they come (normally you'd have to wait for subprocess to finish to get the output as a whole).



          For your case the usage would be:



          for line in runProcess('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()):
          print line,





          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Thank you for your help! But function goes into an infinite loop for me...

            – Silver Light
            Jan 21 '11 at 15:17






          • 4





            -1: it is an infinite loop the if retcode is 0. The check should be if retcode is not None. You should not yield empty strings (even an empty line is at least one symbol 'n'): if line: yield line. Call p.stdout.close() at the end.

            – jfs
            Jan 24 '11 at 9:37






          • 2





            I tried the code with ls -l /dirname and it breaks after listing two files while there are much more files in the directory

            – Vasilis
            Sep 30 '13 at 20:01






          • 1





            @Vasilis: check similar answer

            – jfs
            Nov 13 '13 at 1:28






          • 3





            @fuenfundachtzig: .readlines() won't return until all output is read and therefore it breaks for large output that does not fit in memory. Also to avoid missing buffered data after the subprocess exited there should be an analog of if retcode is not None: yield from p.stdout.readlines(); break

            – jfs
            Dec 21 '13 at 5:15
















          102














          Something like that:



          def runProcess(exe): 
          p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
          while(True):
          # returns None while subprocess is running
          retcode = p.poll()
          line = p.stdout.readline()
          yield line
          if retcode is not None:
          break


          Note, that I'm redirecting stderr to stdout, it might not be exactly what you want, but I want error messages also.



          This function yields line by line as they come (normally you'd have to wait for subprocess to finish to get the output as a whole).



          For your case the usage would be:



          for line in runProcess('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()):
          print line,





          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Thank you for your help! But function goes into an infinite loop for me...

            – Silver Light
            Jan 21 '11 at 15:17






          • 4





            -1: it is an infinite loop the if retcode is 0. The check should be if retcode is not None. You should not yield empty strings (even an empty line is at least one symbol 'n'): if line: yield line. Call p.stdout.close() at the end.

            – jfs
            Jan 24 '11 at 9:37






          • 2





            I tried the code with ls -l /dirname and it breaks after listing two files while there are much more files in the directory

            – Vasilis
            Sep 30 '13 at 20:01






          • 1





            @Vasilis: check similar answer

            – jfs
            Nov 13 '13 at 1:28






          • 3





            @fuenfundachtzig: .readlines() won't return until all output is read and therefore it breaks for large output that does not fit in memory. Also to avoid missing buffered data after the subprocess exited there should be an analog of if retcode is not None: yield from p.stdout.readlines(); break

            – jfs
            Dec 21 '13 at 5:15














          102












          102








          102







          Something like that:



          def runProcess(exe): 
          p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
          while(True):
          # returns None while subprocess is running
          retcode = p.poll()
          line = p.stdout.readline()
          yield line
          if retcode is not None:
          break


          Note, that I'm redirecting stderr to stdout, it might not be exactly what you want, but I want error messages also.



          This function yields line by line as they come (normally you'd have to wait for subprocess to finish to get the output as a whole).



          For your case the usage would be:



          for line in runProcess('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()):
          print line,





          share|improve this answer















          Something like that:



          def runProcess(exe): 
          p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
          while(True):
          # returns None while subprocess is running
          retcode = p.poll()
          line = p.stdout.readline()
          yield line
          if retcode is not None:
          break


          Note, that I'm redirecting stderr to stdout, it might not be exactly what you want, but I want error messages also.



          This function yields line by line as they come (normally you'd have to wait for subprocess to finish to get the output as a whole).



          For your case the usage would be:



          for line in runProcess('mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()):
          print line,






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Dec 28 '18 at 10:30









          dominik andreas

          1375




          1375










          answered Jan 21 '11 at 15:02









          vartecvartec

          98k27181223




          98k27181223







          • 1





            Thank you for your help! But function goes into an infinite loop for me...

            – Silver Light
            Jan 21 '11 at 15:17






          • 4





            -1: it is an infinite loop the if retcode is 0. The check should be if retcode is not None. You should not yield empty strings (even an empty line is at least one symbol 'n'): if line: yield line. Call p.stdout.close() at the end.

            – jfs
            Jan 24 '11 at 9:37






          • 2





            I tried the code with ls -l /dirname and it breaks after listing two files while there are much more files in the directory

            – Vasilis
            Sep 30 '13 at 20:01






          • 1





            @Vasilis: check similar answer

            – jfs
            Nov 13 '13 at 1:28






          • 3





            @fuenfundachtzig: .readlines() won't return until all output is read and therefore it breaks for large output that does not fit in memory. Also to avoid missing buffered data after the subprocess exited there should be an analog of if retcode is not None: yield from p.stdout.readlines(); break

            – jfs
            Dec 21 '13 at 5:15













          • 1





            Thank you for your help! But function goes into an infinite loop for me...

            – Silver Light
            Jan 21 '11 at 15:17






          • 4





            -1: it is an infinite loop the if retcode is 0. The check should be if retcode is not None. You should not yield empty strings (even an empty line is at least one symbol 'n'): if line: yield line. Call p.stdout.close() at the end.

            – jfs
            Jan 24 '11 at 9:37






          • 2





            I tried the code with ls -l /dirname and it breaks after listing two files while there are much more files in the directory

            – Vasilis
            Sep 30 '13 at 20:01






          • 1





            @Vasilis: check similar answer

            – jfs
            Nov 13 '13 at 1:28






          • 3





            @fuenfundachtzig: .readlines() won't return until all output is read and therefore it breaks for large output that does not fit in memory. Also to avoid missing buffered data after the subprocess exited there should be an analog of if retcode is not None: yield from p.stdout.readlines(); break

            – jfs
            Dec 21 '13 at 5:15








          1




          1





          Thank you for your help! But function goes into an infinite loop for me...

          – Silver Light
          Jan 21 '11 at 15:17





          Thank you for your help! But function goes into an infinite loop for me...

          – Silver Light
          Jan 21 '11 at 15:17




          4




          4





          -1: it is an infinite loop the if retcode is 0. The check should be if retcode is not None. You should not yield empty strings (even an empty line is at least one symbol 'n'): if line: yield line. Call p.stdout.close() at the end.

          – jfs
          Jan 24 '11 at 9:37





          -1: it is an infinite loop the if retcode is 0. The check should be if retcode is not None. You should not yield empty strings (even an empty line is at least one symbol 'n'): if line: yield line. Call p.stdout.close() at the end.

          – jfs
          Jan 24 '11 at 9:37




          2




          2





          I tried the code with ls -l /dirname and it breaks after listing two files while there are much more files in the directory

          – Vasilis
          Sep 30 '13 at 20:01





          I tried the code with ls -l /dirname and it breaks after listing two files while there are much more files in the directory

          – Vasilis
          Sep 30 '13 at 20:01




          1




          1





          @Vasilis: check similar answer

          – jfs
          Nov 13 '13 at 1:28





          @Vasilis: check similar answer

          – jfs
          Nov 13 '13 at 1:28




          3




          3





          @fuenfundachtzig: .readlines() won't return until all output is read and therefore it breaks for large output that does not fit in memory. Also to avoid missing buffered data after the subprocess exited there should be an analog of if retcode is not None: yield from p.stdout.readlines(); break

          – jfs
          Dec 21 '13 at 5:15






          @fuenfundachtzig: .readlines() won't return until all output is read and therefore it breaks for large output that does not fit in memory. Also to avoid missing buffered data after the subprocess exited there should be an analog of if retcode is not None: yield from p.stdout.readlines(); break

          – jfs
          Dec 21 '13 at 5:15












          59














          Vartec's answer doesn't read all lines, so I made a version that did:



          def run_command(command):
          p = subprocess.Popen(command,
          stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
          return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')


          Usage is the same as the accepted answer:



          command = 'mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()
          for line in run_command(command):
          print(line)





          share|improve this answer




















          • 6





            you could use return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'') instead of the while loop

            – jfs
            Nov 22 '12 at 15:44






          • 1





            That is a pretty cool use of iter, didn't know that! I updated the code.

            – Max Ekman
            Nov 28 '12 at 21:53











          • I'm pretty sure stdout keeps all output, it's a stream object with a buffer. I use a very similar technique to deplete all remaining output after a Popen have completed, and in my case, using poll() and readline during the execution to capture output live also.

            – Max Ekman
            Nov 28 '12 at 21:55











          • I've removed my misleading comment. I can confirm, p.stdout.readline() may return the non-empty previously-buffered output even if the child process have exited already (p.poll() is not None).

            – jfs
            Sep 18 '14 at 3:12











          • This code doesn't work. See here stackoverflow.com/questions/24340877/…

            – thang
            May 3 '15 at 6:00















          59














          Vartec's answer doesn't read all lines, so I made a version that did:



          def run_command(command):
          p = subprocess.Popen(command,
          stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
          return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')


          Usage is the same as the accepted answer:



          command = 'mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()
          for line in run_command(command):
          print(line)





          share|improve this answer




















          • 6





            you could use return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'') instead of the while loop

            – jfs
            Nov 22 '12 at 15:44






          • 1





            That is a pretty cool use of iter, didn't know that! I updated the code.

            – Max Ekman
            Nov 28 '12 at 21:53











          • I'm pretty sure stdout keeps all output, it's a stream object with a buffer. I use a very similar technique to deplete all remaining output after a Popen have completed, and in my case, using poll() and readline during the execution to capture output live also.

            – Max Ekman
            Nov 28 '12 at 21:55











          • I've removed my misleading comment. I can confirm, p.stdout.readline() may return the non-empty previously-buffered output even if the child process have exited already (p.poll() is not None).

            – jfs
            Sep 18 '14 at 3:12











          • This code doesn't work. See here stackoverflow.com/questions/24340877/…

            – thang
            May 3 '15 at 6:00













          59












          59








          59







          Vartec's answer doesn't read all lines, so I made a version that did:



          def run_command(command):
          p = subprocess.Popen(command,
          stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
          return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')


          Usage is the same as the accepted answer:



          command = 'mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()
          for line in run_command(command):
          print(line)





          share|improve this answer















          Vartec's answer doesn't read all lines, so I made a version that did:



          def run_command(command):
          p = subprocess.Popen(command,
          stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
          return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')


          Usage is the same as the accepted answer:



          command = 'mysqladmin create test -uroot -pmysqladmin12'.split()
          for line in run_command(command):
          print(line)






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 23 '17 at 11:33









          Community

          11




          11










          answered Oct 30 '12 at 9:24









          Max EkmanMax Ekman

          72955




          72955







          • 6





            you could use return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'') instead of the while loop

            – jfs
            Nov 22 '12 at 15:44






          • 1





            That is a pretty cool use of iter, didn't know that! I updated the code.

            – Max Ekman
            Nov 28 '12 at 21:53











          • I'm pretty sure stdout keeps all output, it's a stream object with a buffer. I use a very similar technique to deplete all remaining output after a Popen have completed, and in my case, using poll() and readline during the execution to capture output live also.

            – Max Ekman
            Nov 28 '12 at 21:55











          • I've removed my misleading comment. I can confirm, p.stdout.readline() may return the non-empty previously-buffered output even if the child process have exited already (p.poll() is not None).

            – jfs
            Sep 18 '14 at 3:12











          • This code doesn't work. See here stackoverflow.com/questions/24340877/…

            – thang
            May 3 '15 at 6:00












          • 6





            you could use return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'') instead of the while loop

            – jfs
            Nov 22 '12 at 15:44






          • 1





            That is a pretty cool use of iter, didn't know that! I updated the code.

            – Max Ekman
            Nov 28 '12 at 21:53











          • I'm pretty sure stdout keeps all output, it's a stream object with a buffer. I use a very similar technique to deplete all remaining output after a Popen have completed, and in my case, using poll() and readline during the execution to capture output live also.

            – Max Ekman
            Nov 28 '12 at 21:55











          • I've removed my misleading comment. I can confirm, p.stdout.readline() may return the non-empty previously-buffered output even if the child process have exited already (p.poll() is not None).

            – jfs
            Sep 18 '14 at 3:12











          • This code doesn't work. See here stackoverflow.com/questions/24340877/…

            – thang
            May 3 '15 at 6:00







          6




          6





          you could use return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'') instead of the while loop

          – jfs
          Nov 22 '12 at 15:44





          you could use return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'') instead of the while loop

          – jfs
          Nov 22 '12 at 15:44




          1




          1





          That is a pretty cool use of iter, didn't know that! I updated the code.

          – Max Ekman
          Nov 28 '12 at 21:53





          That is a pretty cool use of iter, didn't know that! I updated the code.

          – Max Ekman
          Nov 28 '12 at 21:53













          I'm pretty sure stdout keeps all output, it's a stream object with a buffer. I use a very similar technique to deplete all remaining output after a Popen have completed, and in my case, using poll() and readline during the execution to capture output live also.

          – Max Ekman
          Nov 28 '12 at 21:55





          I'm pretty sure stdout keeps all output, it's a stream object with a buffer. I use a very similar technique to deplete all remaining output after a Popen have completed, and in my case, using poll() and readline during the execution to capture output live also.

          – Max Ekman
          Nov 28 '12 at 21:55













          I've removed my misleading comment. I can confirm, p.stdout.readline() may return the non-empty previously-buffered output even if the child process have exited already (p.poll() is not None).

          – jfs
          Sep 18 '14 at 3:12





          I've removed my misleading comment. I can confirm, p.stdout.readline() may return the non-empty previously-buffered output even if the child process have exited already (p.poll() is not None).

          – jfs
          Sep 18 '14 at 3:12













          This code doesn't work. See here stackoverflow.com/questions/24340877/…

          – thang
          May 3 '15 at 6:00





          This code doesn't work. See here stackoverflow.com/questions/24340877/…

          – thang
          May 3 '15 at 6:00











          41














          This is a tricky but super simple solution which works in many situations:



          import os
          os.system('sample_cmd > tmp')
          print open('tmp', 'r').read()


          A temporary file(here is tmp) is created with the output of the command and you can read from it your desired output.



          Extra note from the comments:
          You can remove the tmp file in the case of one-time job. If you need to do this several times, there is no need to delete the tmp.



          os.remove('tmp')





          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            Hacky but super simple + works anywhere .. can combine it with mktemp to make it work in threaded situations I guess

            – Prakash Rajagaopal
            Oct 18 '16 at 1:32






          • 2





            Maybe the fastest method, but better add os.remove('tmp') to make it "fileless".

            – XuMuK
            Jul 3 '17 at 16:11












          • @XuMuK You're right in the case of a one-time job. If it is a repetitive work maybe deleting is not necessary

            – Mehdi1902
            Jul 5 '17 at 15:18











          • bad for concurrency, bad for reentrant functions, bad for not leaving the system as it was before it started ( no cleanup )

            – 2mia
            Jul 13 '18 at 12:49







          • 1





            @2mia Obviously it's easy for a reason! If you want to use the file as a kind of shared memory for concurrent reads and writes, this is not a good choice. But, for s.th. like having the output of a command (e.g. ls or find or ...) it can be a good and fast choice. B.t.w. if you need a fast solution for a simple problem it's the best I think. If you need a pipeline, subprocess works for you more efficient.

            – Mehdi1902
            Jul 15 '18 at 6:17















          41














          This is a tricky but super simple solution which works in many situations:



          import os
          os.system('sample_cmd > tmp')
          print open('tmp', 'r').read()


          A temporary file(here is tmp) is created with the output of the command and you can read from it your desired output.



          Extra note from the comments:
          You can remove the tmp file in the case of one-time job. If you need to do this several times, there is no need to delete the tmp.



          os.remove('tmp')





          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            Hacky but super simple + works anywhere .. can combine it with mktemp to make it work in threaded situations I guess

            – Prakash Rajagaopal
            Oct 18 '16 at 1:32






          • 2





            Maybe the fastest method, but better add os.remove('tmp') to make it "fileless".

            – XuMuK
            Jul 3 '17 at 16:11












          • @XuMuK You're right in the case of a one-time job. If it is a repetitive work maybe deleting is not necessary

            – Mehdi1902
            Jul 5 '17 at 15:18











          • bad for concurrency, bad for reentrant functions, bad for not leaving the system as it was before it started ( no cleanup )

            – 2mia
            Jul 13 '18 at 12:49







          • 1





            @2mia Obviously it's easy for a reason! If you want to use the file as a kind of shared memory for concurrent reads and writes, this is not a good choice. But, for s.th. like having the output of a command (e.g. ls or find or ...) it can be a good and fast choice. B.t.w. if you need a fast solution for a simple problem it's the best I think. If you need a pipeline, subprocess works for you more efficient.

            – Mehdi1902
            Jul 15 '18 at 6:17













          41












          41








          41







          This is a tricky but super simple solution which works in many situations:



          import os
          os.system('sample_cmd > tmp')
          print open('tmp', 'r').read()


          A temporary file(here is tmp) is created with the output of the command and you can read from it your desired output.



          Extra note from the comments:
          You can remove the tmp file in the case of one-time job. If you need to do this several times, there is no need to delete the tmp.



          os.remove('tmp')





          share|improve this answer















          This is a tricky but super simple solution which works in many situations:



          import os
          os.system('sample_cmd > tmp')
          print open('tmp', 'r').read()


          A temporary file(here is tmp) is created with the output of the command and you can read from it your desired output.



          Extra note from the comments:
          You can remove the tmp file in the case of one-time job. If you need to do this several times, there is no need to delete the tmp.



          os.remove('tmp')






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Oct 27 '17 at 7:19

























          answered Aug 21 '16 at 21:28









          Mehdi1902Mehdi1902

          1,10831827




          1,10831827







          • 3





            Hacky but super simple + works anywhere .. can combine it with mktemp to make it work in threaded situations I guess

            – Prakash Rajagaopal
            Oct 18 '16 at 1:32






          • 2





            Maybe the fastest method, but better add os.remove('tmp') to make it "fileless".

            – XuMuK
            Jul 3 '17 at 16:11












          • @XuMuK You're right in the case of a one-time job. If it is a repetitive work maybe deleting is not necessary

            – Mehdi1902
            Jul 5 '17 at 15:18











          • bad for concurrency, bad for reentrant functions, bad for not leaving the system as it was before it started ( no cleanup )

            – 2mia
            Jul 13 '18 at 12:49







          • 1





            @2mia Obviously it's easy for a reason! If you want to use the file as a kind of shared memory for concurrent reads and writes, this is not a good choice. But, for s.th. like having the output of a command (e.g. ls or find or ...) it can be a good and fast choice. B.t.w. if you need a fast solution for a simple problem it's the best I think. If you need a pipeline, subprocess works for you more efficient.

            – Mehdi1902
            Jul 15 '18 at 6:17












          • 3





            Hacky but super simple + works anywhere .. can combine it with mktemp to make it work in threaded situations I guess

            – Prakash Rajagaopal
            Oct 18 '16 at 1:32






          • 2





            Maybe the fastest method, but better add os.remove('tmp') to make it "fileless".

            – XuMuK
            Jul 3 '17 at 16:11












          • @XuMuK You're right in the case of a one-time job. If it is a repetitive work maybe deleting is not necessary

            – Mehdi1902
            Jul 5 '17 at 15:18











          • bad for concurrency, bad for reentrant functions, bad for not leaving the system as it was before it started ( no cleanup )

            – 2mia
            Jul 13 '18 at 12:49







          • 1





            @2mia Obviously it's easy for a reason! If you want to use the file as a kind of shared memory for concurrent reads and writes, this is not a good choice. But, for s.th. like having the output of a command (e.g. ls or find or ...) it can be a good and fast choice. B.t.w. if you need a fast solution for a simple problem it's the best I think. If you need a pipeline, subprocess works for you more efficient.

            – Mehdi1902
            Jul 15 '18 at 6:17







          3




          3





          Hacky but super simple + works anywhere .. can combine it with mktemp to make it work in threaded situations I guess

          – Prakash Rajagaopal
          Oct 18 '16 at 1:32





          Hacky but super simple + works anywhere .. can combine it with mktemp to make it work in threaded situations I guess

          – Prakash Rajagaopal
          Oct 18 '16 at 1:32




          2




          2





          Maybe the fastest method, but better add os.remove('tmp') to make it "fileless".

          – XuMuK
          Jul 3 '17 at 16:11






          Maybe the fastest method, but better add os.remove('tmp') to make it "fileless".

          – XuMuK
          Jul 3 '17 at 16:11














          @XuMuK You're right in the case of a one-time job. If it is a repetitive work maybe deleting is not necessary

          – Mehdi1902
          Jul 5 '17 at 15:18





          @XuMuK You're right in the case of a one-time job. If it is a repetitive work maybe deleting is not necessary

          – Mehdi1902
          Jul 5 '17 at 15:18













          bad for concurrency, bad for reentrant functions, bad for not leaving the system as it was before it started ( no cleanup )

          – 2mia
          Jul 13 '18 at 12:49






          bad for concurrency, bad for reentrant functions, bad for not leaving the system as it was before it started ( no cleanup )

          – 2mia
          Jul 13 '18 at 12:49





          1




          1





          @2mia Obviously it's easy for a reason! If you want to use the file as a kind of shared memory for concurrent reads and writes, this is not a good choice. But, for s.th. like having the output of a command (e.g. ls or find or ...) it can be a good and fast choice. B.t.w. if you need a fast solution for a simple problem it's the best I think. If you need a pipeline, subprocess works for you more efficient.

          – Mehdi1902
          Jul 15 '18 at 6:17





          @2mia Obviously it's easy for a reason! If you want to use the file as a kind of shared memory for concurrent reads and writes, this is not a good choice. But, for s.th. like having the output of a command (e.g. ls or find or ...) it can be a good and fast choice. B.t.w. if you need a fast solution for a simple problem it's the best I think. If you need a pipeline, subprocess works for you more efficient.

          – Mehdi1902
          Jul 15 '18 at 6:17











          20














          In Python 3.5:



          import subprocess

          output = subprocess.run("ls -l", shell=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
          universal_newlines=True)
          print(output.stdout)





          share|improve this answer





























            20














            In Python 3.5:



            import subprocess

            output = subprocess.run("ls -l", shell=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
            universal_newlines=True)
            print(output.stdout)





            share|improve this answer



























              20












              20








              20







              In Python 3.5:



              import subprocess

              output = subprocess.run("ls -l", shell=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
              universal_newlines=True)
              print(output.stdout)





              share|improve this answer















              In Python 3.5:



              import subprocess

              output = subprocess.run("ls -l", shell=True, stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
              universal_newlines=True)
              print(output.stdout)






              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jul 29 '16 at 23:00

























              answered Jul 29 '16 at 20:03









              cmlaverdierecmlaverdiere

              73675




              73675





















                  17














                  I had the same problem
                  But figured out a very simple way of doing this
                  follow this



                  import subprocess
                  output = subprocess.getoutput("ls -l")
                  print(output)


                  Hope it helps out



                  Note: This solution is python3 specific as subprocess.getoutput() don't work in python2






                  share|improve this answer




















                  • 2





                    It returns the output of command as string, as simple as that

                    – itz-azhar
                    Dec 4 '16 at 7:55






                  • 3





                    Doesn't work on Python 2

                    – Allan Deamon
                    Jan 15 '17 at 17:45






                  • 1





                    Of course, print is a statement on Python 2. You should be able to figure out this is a Python 3 answer.

                    – Dev
                    Jan 25 '17 at 21:07






                  • 2





                    @Dev print(s) is valid python 2. subprocess.getoutput is not.

                    – user48956
                    Apr 27 '17 at 17:46






                  • 4





                    This should be at the top. I'm sure most people are like me and they're googling this because they just want to make a quick script in python instead of bash. getoutput solves the common case and should be the first result

                    – CornSmith
                    Nov 12 '18 at 16:19















                  17














                  I had the same problem
                  But figured out a very simple way of doing this
                  follow this



                  import subprocess
                  output = subprocess.getoutput("ls -l")
                  print(output)


                  Hope it helps out



                  Note: This solution is python3 specific as subprocess.getoutput() don't work in python2






                  share|improve this answer




















                  • 2





                    It returns the output of command as string, as simple as that

                    – itz-azhar
                    Dec 4 '16 at 7:55






                  • 3





                    Doesn't work on Python 2

                    – Allan Deamon
                    Jan 15 '17 at 17:45






                  • 1





                    Of course, print is a statement on Python 2. You should be able to figure out this is a Python 3 answer.

                    – Dev
                    Jan 25 '17 at 21:07






                  • 2





                    @Dev print(s) is valid python 2. subprocess.getoutput is not.

                    – user48956
                    Apr 27 '17 at 17:46






                  • 4





                    This should be at the top. I'm sure most people are like me and they're googling this because they just want to make a quick script in python instead of bash. getoutput solves the common case and should be the first result

                    – CornSmith
                    Nov 12 '18 at 16:19













                  17












                  17








                  17







                  I had the same problem
                  But figured out a very simple way of doing this
                  follow this



                  import subprocess
                  output = subprocess.getoutput("ls -l")
                  print(output)


                  Hope it helps out



                  Note: This solution is python3 specific as subprocess.getoutput() don't work in python2






                  share|improve this answer















                  I had the same problem
                  But figured out a very simple way of doing this
                  follow this



                  import subprocess
                  output = subprocess.getoutput("ls -l")
                  print(output)


                  Hope it helps out



                  Note: This solution is python3 specific as subprocess.getoutput() don't work in python2







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 12 '18 at 16:24









                  CornSmith

                  1,0121330




                  1,0121330










                  answered Nov 12 '16 at 19:44









                  itz-azharitz-azhar

                  8641818




                  8641818







                  • 2





                    It returns the output of command as string, as simple as that

                    – itz-azhar
                    Dec 4 '16 at 7:55






                  • 3





                    Doesn't work on Python 2

                    – Allan Deamon
                    Jan 15 '17 at 17:45






                  • 1





                    Of course, print is a statement on Python 2. You should be able to figure out this is a Python 3 answer.

                    – Dev
                    Jan 25 '17 at 21:07






                  • 2





                    @Dev print(s) is valid python 2. subprocess.getoutput is not.

                    – user48956
                    Apr 27 '17 at 17:46






                  • 4





                    This should be at the top. I'm sure most people are like me and they're googling this because they just want to make a quick script in python instead of bash. getoutput solves the common case and should be the first result

                    – CornSmith
                    Nov 12 '18 at 16:19












                  • 2





                    It returns the output of command as string, as simple as that

                    – itz-azhar
                    Dec 4 '16 at 7:55






                  • 3





                    Doesn't work on Python 2

                    – Allan Deamon
                    Jan 15 '17 at 17:45






                  • 1





                    Of course, print is a statement on Python 2. You should be able to figure out this is a Python 3 answer.

                    – Dev
                    Jan 25 '17 at 21:07






                  • 2





                    @Dev print(s) is valid python 2. subprocess.getoutput is not.

                    – user48956
                    Apr 27 '17 at 17:46






                  • 4





                    This should be at the top. I'm sure most people are like me and they're googling this because they just want to make a quick script in python instead of bash. getoutput solves the common case and should be the first result

                    – CornSmith
                    Nov 12 '18 at 16:19







                  2




                  2





                  It returns the output of command as string, as simple as that

                  – itz-azhar
                  Dec 4 '16 at 7:55





                  It returns the output of command as string, as simple as that

                  – itz-azhar
                  Dec 4 '16 at 7:55




                  3




                  3





                  Doesn't work on Python 2

                  – Allan Deamon
                  Jan 15 '17 at 17:45





                  Doesn't work on Python 2

                  – Allan Deamon
                  Jan 15 '17 at 17:45




                  1




                  1





                  Of course, print is a statement on Python 2. You should be able to figure out this is a Python 3 answer.

                  – Dev
                  Jan 25 '17 at 21:07





                  Of course, print is a statement on Python 2. You should be able to figure out this is a Python 3 answer.

                  – Dev
                  Jan 25 '17 at 21:07




                  2




                  2





                  @Dev print(s) is valid python 2. subprocess.getoutput is not.

                  – user48956
                  Apr 27 '17 at 17:46





                  @Dev print(s) is valid python 2. subprocess.getoutput is not.

                  – user48956
                  Apr 27 '17 at 17:46




                  4




                  4





                  This should be at the top. I'm sure most people are like me and they're googling this because they just want to make a quick script in python instead of bash. getoutput solves the common case and should be the first result

                  – CornSmith
                  Nov 12 '18 at 16:19





                  This should be at the top. I'm sure most people are like me and they're googling this because they just want to make a quick script in python instead of bash. getoutput solves the common case and should be the first result

                  – CornSmith
                  Nov 12 '18 at 16:19











                  15














                  You can use following commands to run any shell command. I have used them on ubuntu.



                  import os
                  os.popen('your command here').read()





                  share|improve this answer




















                  • 1





                    Deprecated since version 2.6 – docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#os.popen

                    – Filippo Vitale
                    May 26 '17 at 13:28






                  • 1





                    @FilippoVitale Thanks. I did not know that it is deprecated.

                    – Muhammad Hassan
                    May 26 '17 at 14:44











                  • According to raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/71547/… os.popen() is deprecated in Python 2.6, but it is not deprecated in Python 3.x, since in 3.x it is implemented using subprocess.Popen().

                    – J-L
                    Aug 13 '18 at 19:07















                  15














                  You can use following commands to run any shell command. I have used them on ubuntu.



                  import os
                  os.popen('your command here').read()





                  share|improve this answer




















                  • 1





                    Deprecated since version 2.6 – docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#os.popen

                    – Filippo Vitale
                    May 26 '17 at 13:28






                  • 1





                    @FilippoVitale Thanks. I did not know that it is deprecated.

                    – Muhammad Hassan
                    May 26 '17 at 14:44











                  • According to raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/71547/… os.popen() is deprecated in Python 2.6, but it is not deprecated in Python 3.x, since in 3.x it is implemented using subprocess.Popen().

                    – J-L
                    Aug 13 '18 at 19:07













                  15












                  15








                  15







                  You can use following commands to run any shell command. I have used them on ubuntu.



                  import os
                  os.popen('your command here').read()





                  share|improve this answer















                  You can use following commands to run any shell command. I have used them on ubuntu.



                  import os
                  os.popen('your command here').read()






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Jul 3 '17 at 19:04

























                  answered Apr 4 '17 at 19:08









                  Muhammad HassanMuhammad Hassan

                  8,59431636




                  8,59431636







                  • 1





                    Deprecated since version 2.6 – docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#os.popen

                    – Filippo Vitale
                    May 26 '17 at 13:28






                  • 1





                    @FilippoVitale Thanks. I did not know that it is deprecated.

                    – Muhammad Hassan
                    May 26 '17 at 14:44











                  • According to raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/71547/… os.popen() is deprecated in Python 2.6, but it is not deprecated in Python 3.x, since in 3.x it is implemented using subprocess.Popen().

                    – J-L
                    Aug 13 '18 at 19:07












                  • 1





                    Deprecated since version 2.6 – docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#os.popen

                    – Filippo Vitale
                    May 26 '17 at 13:28






                  • 1





                    @FilippoVitale Thanks. I did not know that it is deprecated.

                    – Muhammad Hassan
                    May 26 '17 at 14:44











                  • According to raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/71547/… os.popen() is deprecated in Python 2.6, but it is not deprecated in Python 3.x, since in 3.x it is implemented using subprocess.Popen().

                    – J-L
                    Aug 13 '18 at 19:07







                  1




                  1





                  Deprecated since version 2.6 – docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#os.popen

                  – Filippo Vitale
                  May 26 '17 at 13:28





                  Deprecated since version 2.6 – docs.python.org/2/library/os.html#os.popen

                  – Filippo Vitale
                  May 26 '17 at 13:28




                  1




                  1





                  @FilippoVitale Thanks. I did not know that it is deprecated.

                  – Muhammad Hassan
                  May 26 '17 at 14:44





                  @FilippoVitale Thanks. I did not know that it is deprecated.

                  – Muhammad Hassan
                  May 26 '17 at 14:44













                  According to raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/71547/… os.popen() is deprecated in Python 2.6, but it is not deprecated in Python 3.x, since in 3.x it is implemented using subprocess.Popen().

                  – J-L
                  Aug 13 '18 at 19:07





                  According to raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/71547/… os.popen() is deprecated in Python 2.6, but it is not deprecated in Python 3.x, since in 3.x it is implemented using subprocess.Popen().

                  – J-L
                  Aug 13 '18 at 19:07











                  13














                  Modern Python solution (>= 3.1):



                   res = subprocess.check_output(lcmd, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)





                  share|improve this answer


















                  • 7





                    As the accepted answer says, check_output() is available since Python 2.7.

                    – jfs
                    Apr 21 '14 at 17:13















                  13














                  Modern Python solution (>= 3.1):



                   res = subprocess.check_output(lcmd, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)





                  share|improve this answer


















                  • 7





                    As the accepted answer says, check_output() is available since Python 2.7.

                    – jfs
                    Apr 21 '14 at 17:13













                  13












                  13








                  13







                  Modern Python solution (>= 3.1):



                   res = subprocess.check_output(lcmd, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)





                  share|improve this answer













                  Modern Python solution (>= 3.1):



                   res = subprocess.check_output(lcmd, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)






                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 20 '14 at 20:30









                  zlrzlr

                  602919




                  602919







                  • 7





                    As the accepted answer says, check_output() is available since Python 2.7.

                    – jfs
                    Apr 21 '14 at 17:13












                  • 7





                    As the accepted answer says, check_output() is available since Python 2.7.

                    – jfs
                    Apr 21 '14 at 17:13







                  7




                  7





                  As the accepted answer says, check_output() is available since Python 2.7.

                  – jfs
                  Apr 21 '14 at 17:13





                  As the accepted answer says, check_output() is available since Python 2.7.

                  – jfs
                  Apr 21 '14 at 17:13











                  10














                  Your Mileage May Vary, I attempted @senderle's spin on Vartec's solution in Windows on Python 2.6.5, but I was getting errors, and no other solutions worked. My error was: WindowsError: [Error 6] The handle is invalid.



                  I found that I had to assign PIPE to every handle to get it to return the output I expected - the following worked for me.



                  import subprocess

                  def run_command(cmd):
                  """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
                  return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stdin=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()


                  and call like this, ([0] gets the first element of the tuple, stdout):



                  run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')[0]


                  After learning more, I believe I need these pipe arguments because I'm working on a custom system that uses different handles, so I had to directly control all the std's.



                  To stop console popups (with Windows), do this:



                  def run_command(cmd):
                  """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
                  # instantiate a startupinfo obj:
                  startupinfo = subprocess.STARTUPINFO()
                  # set the use show window flag, might make conditional on being in Windows:
                  startupinfo.dwFlags |= subprocess.STARTF_USESHOWWINDOW
                  # pass as the startupinfo keyword argument:
                  return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
                  startupinfo=startupinfo).communicate()

                  run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')





                  share|improve this answer




















                  • 1





                    Interesting -- this must be a Windows thing. I'll add a note pointing to this in case people are getting similar errors.

                    – senderle
                    May 1 '14 at 14:04











                  • use DEVNULL instead of subprocess.PIPE if you don't write/read from a pipe otherwise you may hang the child process.

                    – jfs
                    Sep 9 '14 at 10:57











                  • Sounds like a good tip, @J.F.Sebastian

                    – Aaron Hall
                    Sep 18 '14 at 1:45















                  10














                  Your Mileage May Vary, I attempted @senderle's spin on Vartec's solution in Windows on Python 2.6.5, but I was getting errors, and no other solutions worked. My error was: WindowsError: [Error 6] The handle is invalid.



                  I found that I had to assign PIPE to every handle to get it to return the output I expected - the following worked for me.



                  import subprocess

                  def run_command(cmd):
                  """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
                  return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stdin=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()


                  and call like this, ([0] gets the first element of the tuple, stdout):



                  run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')[0]


                  After learning more, I believe I need these pipe arguments because I'm working on a custom system that uses different handles, so I had to directly control all the std's.



                  To stop console popups (with Windows), do this:



                  def run_command(cmd):
                  """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
                  # instantiate a startupinfo obj:
                  startupinfo = subprocess.STARTUPINFO()
                  # set the use show window flag, might make conditional on being in Windows:
                  startupinfo.dwFlags |= subprocess.STARTF_USESHOWWINDOW
                  # pass as the startupinfo keyword argument:
                  return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
                  startupinfo=startupinfo).communicate()

                  run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')





                  share|improve this answer




















                  • 1





                    Interesting -- this must be a Windows thing. I'll add a note pointing to this in case people are getting similar errors.

                    – senderle
                    May 1 '14 at 14:04











                  • use DEVNULL instead of subprocess.PIPE if you don't write/read from a pipe otherwise you may hang the child process.

                    – jfs
                    Sep 9 '14 at 10:57











                  • Sounds like a good tip, @J.F.Sebastian

                    – Aaron Hall
                    Sep 18 '14 at 1:45













                  10












                  10








                  10







                  Your Mileage May Vary, I attempted @senderle's spin on Vartec's solution in Windows on Python 2.6.5, but I was getting errors, and no other solutions worked. My error was: WindowsError: [Error 6] The handle is invalid.



                  I found that I had to assign PIPE to every handle to get it to return the output I expected - the following worked for me.



                  import subprocess

                  def run_command(cmd):
                  """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
                  return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stdin=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()


                  and call like this, ([0] gets the first element of the tuple, stdout):



                  run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')[0]


                  After learning more, I believe I need these pipe arguments because I'm working on a custom system that uses different handles, so I had to directly control all the std's.



                  To stop console popups (with Windows), do this:



                  def run_command(cmd):
                  """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
                  # instantiate a startupinfo obj:
                  startupinfo = subprocess.STARTUPINFO()
                  # set the use show window flag, might make conditional on being in Windows:
                  startupinfo.dwFlags |= subprocess.STARTF_USESHOWWINDOW
                  # pass as the startupinfo keyword argument:
                  return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
                  startupinfo=startupinfo).communicate()

                  run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')





                  share|improve this answer















                  Your Mileage May Vary, I attempted @senderle's spin on Vartec's solution in Windows on Python 2.6.5, but I was getting errors, and no other solutions worked. My error was: WindowsError: [Error 6] The handle is invalid.



                  I found that I had to assign PIPE to every handle to get it to return the output I expected - the following worked for me.



                  import subprocess

                  def run_command(cmd):
                  """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
                  return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stdin=subprocess.PIPE).communicate()


                  and call like this, ([0] gets the first element of the tuple, stdout):



                  run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')[0]


                  After learning more, I believe I need these pipe arguments because I'm working on a custom system that uses different handles, so I had to directly control all the std's.



                  To stop console popups (with Windows), do this:



                  def run_command(cmd):
                  """given shell command, returns communication tuple of stdout and stderr"""
                  # instantiate a startupinfo obj:
                  startupinfo = subprocess.STARTUPINFO()
                  # set the use show window flag, might make conditional on being in Windows:
                  startupinfo.dwFlags |= subprocess.STARTF_USESHOWWINDOW
                  # pass as the startupinfo keyword argument:
                  return subprocess.Popen(cmd,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stdin=subprocess.PIPE,
                  startupinfo=startupinfo).communicate()

                  run_command('tracert 11.1.0.1')






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Aug 7 '15 at 15:21







                  user2141741

















                  answered Feb 18 '14 at 23:32









                  Aaron HallAaron Hall

                  185k53310264




                  185k53310264







                  • 1





                    Interesting -- this must be a Windows thing. I'll add a note pointing to this in case people are getting similar errors.

                    – senderle
                    May 1 '14 at 14:04











                  • use DEVNULL instead of subprocess.PIPE if you don't write/read from a pipe otherwise you may hang the child process.

                    – jfs
                    Sep 9 '14 at 10:57











                  • Sounds like a good tip, @J.F.Sebastian

                    – Aaron Hall
                    Sep 18 '14 at 1:45












                  • 1





                    Interesting -- this must be a Windows thing. I'll add a note pointing to this in case people are getting similar errors.

                    – senderle
                    May 1 '14 at 14:04











                  • use DEVNULL instead of subprocess.PIPE if you don't write/read from a pipe otherwise you may hang the child process.

                    – jfs
                    Sep 9 '14 at 10:57











                  • Sounds like a good tip, @J.F.Sebastian

                    – Aaron Hall
                    Sep 18 '14 at 1:45







                  1




                  1





                  Interesting -- this must be a Windows thing. I'll add a note pointing to this in case people are getting similar errors.

                  – senderle
                  May 1 '14 at 14:04





                  Interesting -- this must be a Windows thing. I'll add a note pointing to this in case people are getting similar errors.

                  – senderle
                  May 1 '14 at 14:04













                  use DEVNULL instead of subprocess.PIPE if you don't write/read from a pipe otherwise you may hang the child process.

                  – jfs
                  Sep 9 '14 at 10:57





                  use DEVNULL instead of subprocess.PIPE if you don't write/read from a pipe otherwise you may hang the child process.

                  – jfs
                  Sep 9 '14 at 10:57













                  Sounds like a good tip, @J.F.Sebastian

                  – Aaron Hall
                  Sep 18 '14 at 1:45





                  Sounds like a good tip, @J.F.Sebastian

                  – Aaron Hall
                  Sep 18 '14 at 1:45











                  8














                  I had a slightly different flavor of the same problem with the following requirements:



                  1. Capture and return STDOUT messages as they accumulate in the STDOUT buffer (i.e. in realtime).

                    • @vartec solved this Pythonically with his use of generators and the 'yield'

                      keyword above


                  2. Print all STDOUT lines (even if process exits before STDOUT buffer can be fully read)

                  3. Don't waste CPU cycles polling the process at high-frequency

                  4. Check the return code of the subprocess

                  5. Print STDERR (separate from STDOUT) if we get a non-zero error return code.

                  I've combined and tweaked previous answers to come up with the following:



                  import subprocess
                  from time import sleep

                  def run_command(command):
                  p = subprocess.Popen(command,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  shell=True)
                  # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
                  for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
                  if line: # Don't print blank lines
                  yield line
                  # This ensures the process has completed, AND sets the 'returncode' attr
                  while p.poll() is None:
                  sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
                  # Empty STDERR buffer
                  err = p.stderr.read()
                  if p.returncode != 0:
                  # The run_command() function is responsible for logging STDERR
                  print("Error: " + str(err))


                  This code would be executed the same as previous answers:



                  for line in run_command(cmd):
                  print(line)





                  share|improve this answer

























                  • Do you mind explaining how the addition of sleep(.1) won't waste CPU cycles?

                    – Moataz Elmasry
                    Aug 2 '17 at 9:41






                  • 1





                    If we continued to call p.poll() without any sleep in between calls, we would waste CPU cycles by calling this function millions of times. Instead, we "throttle" our loop by telling the OS that we don't need to be bothered for the next 1/10th second, so it can carry out other tasks. (It's possible that p.poll() sleeps too, making our sleep statement redundant).

                    – The Aelfinn
                    Aug 2 '17 at 11:04















                  8














                  I had a slightly different flavor of the same problem with the following requirements:



                  1. Capture and return STDOUT messages as they accumulate in the STDOUT buffer (i.e. in realtime).

                    • @vartec solved this Pythonically with his use of generators and the 'yield'

                      keyword above


                  2. Print all STDOUT lines (even if process exits before STDOUT buffer can be fully read)

                  3. Don't waste CPU cycles polling the process at high-frequency

                  4. Check the return code of the subprocess

                  5. Print STDERR (separate from STDOUT) if we get a non-zero error return code.

                  I've combined and tweaked previous answers to come up with the following:



                  import subprocess
                  from time import sleep

                  def run_command(command):
                  p = subprocess.Popen(command,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  shell=True)
                  # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
                  for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
                  if line: # Don't print blank lines
                  yield line
                  # This ensures the process has completed, AND sets the 'returncode' attr
                  while p.poll() is None:
                  sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
                  # Empty STDERR buffer
                  err = p.stderr.read()
                  if p.returncode != 0:
                  # The run_command() function is responsible for logging STDERR
                  print("Error: " + str(err))


                  This code would be executed the same as previous answers:



                  for line in run_command(cmd):
                  print(line)





                  share|improve this answer

























                  • Do you mind explaining how the addition of sleep(.1) won't waste CPU cycles?

                    – Moataz Elmasry
                    Aug 2 '17 at 9:41






                  • 1





                    If we continued to call p.poll() without any sleep in between calls, we would waste CPU cycles by calling this function millions of times. Instead, we "throttle" our loop by telling the OS that we don't need to be bothered for the next 1/10th second, so it can carry out other tasks. (It's possible that p.poll() sleeps too, making our sleep statement redundant).

                    – The Aelfinn
                    Aug 2 '17 at 11:04













                  8












                  8








                  8







                  I had a slightly different flavor of the same problem with the following requirements:



                  1. Capture and return STDOUT messages as they accumulate in the STDOUT buffer (i.e. in realtime).

                    • @vartec solved this Pythonically with his use of generators and the 'yield'

                      keyword above


                  2. Print all STDOUT lines (even if process exits before STDOUT buffer can be fully read)

                  3. Don't waste CPU cycles polling the process at high-frequency

                  4. Check the return code of the subprocess

                  5. Print STDERR (separate from STDOUT) if we get a non-zero error return code.

                  I've combined and tweaked previous answers to come up with the following:



                  import subprocess
                  from time import sleep

                  def run_command(command):
                  p = subprocess.Popen(command,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  shell=True)
                  # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
                  for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
                  if line: # Don't print blank lines
                  yield line
                  # This ensures the process has completed, AND sets the 'returncode' attr
                  while p.poll() is None:
                  sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
                  # Empty STDERR buffer
                  err = p.stderr.read()
                  if p.returncode != 0:
                  # The run_command() function is responsible for logging STDERR
                  print("Error: " + str(err))


                  This code would be executed the same as previous answers:



                  for line in run_command(cmd):
                  print(line)





                  share|improve this answer















                  I had a slightly different flavor of the same problem with the following requirements:



                  1. Capture and return STDOUT messages as they accumulate in the STDOUT buffer (i.e. in realtime).

                    • @vartec solved this Pythonically with his use of generators and the 'yield'

                      keyword above


                  2. Print all STDOUT lines (even if process exits before STDOUT buffer can be fully read)

                  3. Don't waste CPU cycles polling the process at high-frequency

                  4. Check the return code of the subprocess

                  5. Print STDERR (separate from STDOUT) if we get a non-zero error return code.

                  I've combined and tweaked previous answers to come up with the following:



                  import subprocess
                  from time import sleep

                  def run_command(command):
                  p = subprocess.Popen(command,
                  stdout=subprocess.PIPE,
                  stderr=subprocess.PIPE,
                  shell=True)
                  # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
                  for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
                  if line: # Don't print blank lines
                  yield line
                  # This ensures the process has completed, AND sets the 'returncode' attr
                  while p.poll() is None:
                  sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
                  # Empty STDERR buffer
                  err = p.stderr.read()
                  if p.returncode != 0:
                  # The run_command() function is responsible for logging STDERR
                  print("Error: " + str(err))


                  This code would be executed the same as previous answers:



                  for line in run_command(cmd):
                  print(line)






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Sep 18 '17 at 3:31









                  Community

                  11




                  11










                  answered Oct 19 '16 at 18:35









                  The AelfinnThe Aelfinn

                  4,60912329




                  4,60912329












                  • Do you mind explaining how the addition of sleep(.1) won't waste CPU cycles?

                    – Moataz Elmasry
                    Aug 2 '17 at 9:41






                  • 1





                    If we continued to call p.poll() without any sleep in between calls, we would waste CPU cycles by calling this function millions of times. Instead, we "throttle" our loop by telling the OS that we don't need to be bothered for the next 1/10th second, so it can carry out other tasks. (It's possible that p.poll() sleeps too, making our sleep statement redundant).

                    – The Aelfinn
                    Aug 2 '17 at 11:04

















                  • Do you mind explaining how the addition of sleep(.1) won't waste CPU cycles?

                    – Moataz Elmasry
                    Aug 2 '17 at 9:41






                  • 1





                    If we continued to call p.poll() without any sleep in between calls, we would waste CPU cycles by calling this function millions of times. Instead, we "throttle" our loop by telling the OS that we don't need to be bothered for the next 1/10th second, so it can carry out other tasks. (It's possible that p.poll() sleeps too, making our sleep statement redundant).

                    – The Aelfinn
                    Aug 2 '17 at 11:04
















                  Do you mind explaining how the addition of sleep(.1) won't waste CPU cycles?

                  – Moataz Elmasry
                  Aug 2 '17 at 9:41





                  Do you mind explaining how the addition of sleep(.1) won't waste CPU cycles?

                  – Moataz Elmasry
                  Aug 2 '17 at 9:41




                  1




                  1





                  If we continued to call p.poll() without any sleep in between calls, we would waste CPU cycles by calling this function millions of times. Instead, we "throttle" our loop by telling the OS that we don't need to be bothered for the next 1/10th second, so it can carry out other tasks. (It's possible that p.poll() sleeps too, making our sleep statement redundant).

                  – The Aelfinn
                  Aug 2 '17 at 11:04





                  If we continued to call p.poll() without any sleep in between calls, we would waste CPU cycles by calling this function millions of times. Instead, we "throttle" our loop by telling the OS that we don't need to be bothered for the next 1/10th second, so it can carry out other tasks. (It's possible that p.poll() sleeps too, making our sleep statement redundant).

                  – The Aelfinn
                  Aug 2 '17 at 11:04











                  2














                  If you need to run a shell command on multiple files, this did the trick for me.



                  import os
                  import subprocess

                  # Define a function for running commands and capturing stdout line by line
                  # (Modified from Vartec's solution because it wasn't printing all lines)
                  def runProcess(exe):
                  p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
                  return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')

                  # Get all filenames in working directory
                  for filename in os.listdir('./'):
                  # This command will be run on each file
                  cmd = 'nm ' + filename

                  # Run the command and capture the output line by line.
                  for line in runProcess(cmd.split()):
                  # Eliminate leading and trailing whitespace
                  line.strip()
                  # Split the output
                  output = line.split()

                  # Filter the output and print relevant lines
                  if len(output) > 2:
                  if ((output[2] == 'set_program_name')):
                  print filename
                  print line


                  Edit: Just saw Max Persson's solution with J.F. Sebastian's suggestion. Went ahead and incorporated that.






                  share|improve this answer



























                    2














                    If you need to run a shell command on multiple files, this did the trick for me.



                    import os
                    import subprocess

                    # Define a function for running commands and capturing stdout line by line
                    # (Modified from Vartec's solution because it wasn't printing all lines)
                    def runProcess(exe):
                    p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
                    return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')

                    # Get all filenames in working directory
                    for filename in os.listdir('./'):
                    # This command will be run on each file
                    cmd = 'nm ' + filename

                    # Run the command and capture the output line by line.
                    for line in runProcess(cmd.split()):
                    # Eliminate leading and trailing whitespace
                    line.strip()
                    # Split the output
                    output = line.split()

                    # Filter the output and print relevant lines
                    if len(output) > 2:
                    if ((output[2] == 'set_program_name')):
                    print filename
                    print line


                    Edit: Just saw Max Persson's solution with J.F. Sebastian's suggestion. Went ahead and incorporated that.






                    share|improve this answer

























                      2












                      2








                      2







                      If you need to run a shell command on multiple files, this did the trick for me.



                      import os
                      import subprocess

                      # Define a function for running commands and capturing stdout line by line
                      # (Modified from Vartec's solution because it wasn't printing all lines)
                      def runProcess(exe):
                      p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
                      return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')

                      # Get all filenames in working directory
                      for filename in os.listdir('./'):
                      # This command will be run on each file
                      cmd = 'nm ' + filename

                      # Run the command and capture the output line by line.
                      for line in runProcess(cmd.split()):
                      # Eliminate leading and trailing whitespace
                      line.strip()
                      # Split the output
                      output = line.split()

                      # Filter the output and print relevant lines
                      if len(output) > 2:
                      if ((output[2] == 'set_program_name')):
                      print filename
                      print line


                      Edit: Just saw Max Persson's solution with J.F. Sebastian's suggestion. Went ahead and incorporated that.






                      share|improve this answer













                      If you need to run a shell command on multiple files, this did the trick for me.



                      import os
                      import subprocess

                      # Define a function for running commands and capturing stdout line by line
                      # (Modified from Vartec's solution because it wasn't printing all lines)
                      def runProcess(exe):
                      p = subprocess.Popen(exe, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT)
                      return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')

                      # Get all filenames in working directory
                      for filename in os.listdir('./'):
                      # This command will be run on each file
                      cmd = 'nm ' + filename

                      # Run the command and capture the output line by line.
                      for line in runProcess(cmd.split()):
                      # Eliminate leading and trailing whitespace
                      line.strip()
                      # Split the output
                      output = line.split()

                      # Filter the output and print relevant lines
                      if len(output) > 2:
                      if ((output[2] == 'set_program_name')):
                      print filename
                      print line


                      Edit: Just saw Max Persson's solution with J.F. Sebastian's suggestion. Went ahead and incorporated that.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Apr 1 '15 at 15:54









                      Ethan StriderEthan Strider

                      4,21821525




                      4,21821525





















                          1














                          Splitting the initial command for the subprocess might be tricky and cumbersome.



                          Use shlex.split to help yourself out.



                          Sample command



                          git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"



                          The code



                          from subprocess import check_output
                          from shlex import split

                          res = check_output(split('git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"'))
                          print(res)
                          >>> b'commit 7696ab087a163e084d6870bb4e5e4d4198bdc61anAuthor: Artur Barseghyan...'





                          share|improve this answer



























                            1














                            Splitting the initial command for the subprocess might be tricky and cumbersome.



                            Use shlex.split to help yourself out.



                            Sample command



                            git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"



                            The code



                            from subprocess import check_output
                            from shlex import split

                            res = check_output(split('git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"'))
                            print(res)
                            >>> b'commit 7696ab087a163e084d6870bb4e5e4d4198bdc61anAuthor: Artur Barseghyan...'





                            share|improve this answer

























                              1












                              1








                              1







                              Splitting the initial command for the subprocess might be tricky and cumbersome.



                              Use shlex.split to help yourself out.



                              Sample command



                              git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"



                              The code



                              from subprocess import check_output
                              from shlex import split

                              res = check_output(split('git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"'))
                              print(res)
                              >>> b'commit 7696ab087a163e084d6870bb4e5e4d4198bdc61anAuthor: Artur Barseghyan...'





                              share|improve this answer













                              Splitting the initial command for the subprocess might be tricky and cumbersome.



                              Use shlex.split to help yourself out.



                              Sample command



                              git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"



                              The code



                              from subprocess import check_output
                              from shlex import split

                              res = check_output(split('git log -n 5 --since "5 years ago" --until "2 year ago"'))
                              print(res)
                              >>> b'commit 7696ab087a163e084d6870bb4e5e4d4198bdc61anAuthor: Artur Barseghyan...'






                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Dec 15 '18 at 22:47









                              Artur BarseghyanArtur Barseghyan

                              5,11222728




                              5,11222728





















                                  0














                                  eg, execute('ls -ahl')
                                  differentiated three/four possible returns and OS platforms:



                                  1. no output, but run successfully

                                  2. output empty line, run successfully

                                  3. run failed

                                  4. output something, run successfully

                                  function below



                                  def execute(cmd, output=True, DEBUG_MODE=False):
                                  """Executes a bash command.
                                  (cmd, output=True)
                                  output: whether print shell output to screen, only affects screen display, does not affect returned values
                                  return: ...regardless of output=True/False...
                                  returns shell output as a list with each elment is a line of string (whitespace stripped both sides) from output
                                  could be
                                  , ie, len()=0 --> no output;
                                  [''] --> output empty line;
                                  None --> error occured, see below

                                  if error ocurs, returns None (ie, is None), print out the error message to screen
                                  """
                                  if not DEBUG_MODE:
                                  print "Command: " + cmd

                                  # https://stackoverflow.com/a/40139101/2292993
                                  def _execute_cmd(cmd):
                                  if os.name == 'nt' or platform.system() == 'Windows':
                                  # set stdin, out, err all to PIPE to get results (other than None) after run the Popen() instance
                                  p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)
                                  else:
                                  # Use bash; the default is sh
                                  p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True, executable="/bin/bash")

                                  # the Popen() instance starts running once instantiated (??)
                                  # additionally, communicate(), or poll() and wait process to terminate
                                  # communicate() accepts optional input as stdin to the pipe (requires setting stdin=subprocess.PIPE above), return out, err as tuple
                                  # if communicate(), the results are buffered in memory

                                  # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
                                  # if error occurs, the stdout is '', which means the below loop is essentially skipped
                                  # A prefix of 'b' or 'B' is ignored in Python 2;
                                  # it indicates that the literal should become a bytes literal in Python 3
                                  # (e.g. when code is automatically converted with 2to3).
                                  # return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')
                                  for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
                                  # # Windows has rn, Unix has n, Old mac has r
                                  # if line not in ['','n','r','rn']: # Don't print blank lines
                                  yield line
                                  while p.poll() is None:
                                  sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
                                  # Empty STDERR buffer
                                  err = p.stderr.read()
                                  if p.returncode != 0:
                                  # responsible for logging STDERR
                                  print("Error: " + str(err))
                                  yield None

                                  out =
                                  for line in _execute_cmd(cmd):
                                  # error did not occur earlier
                                  if line is not None:
                                  # trailing comma to avoid a newline (by print itself) being printed
                                  if output: print line,
                                  out.append(line.strip())
                                  else:
                                  # error occured earlier
                                  out = None
                                  return out
                                  else:
                                  print "Simulation! The command is " + cmd
                                  print ""





                                  share|improve this answer





























                                    0














                                    eg, execute('ls -ahl')
                                    differentiated three/four possible returns and OS platforms:



                                    1. no output, but run successfully

                                    2. output empty line, run successfully

                                    3. run failed

                                    4. output something, run successfully

                                    function below



                                    def execute(cmd, output=True, DEBUG_MODE=False):
                                    """Executes a bash command.
                                    (cmd, output=True)
                                    output: whether print shell output to screen, only affects screen display, does not affect returned values
                                    return: ...regardless of output=True/False...
                                    returns shell output as a list with each elment is a line of string (whitespace stripped both sides) from output
                                    could be
                                    , ie, len()=0 --> no output;
                                    [''] --> output empty line;
                                    None --> error occured, see below

                                    if error ocurs, returns None (ie, is None), print out the error message to screen
                                    """
                                    if not DEBUG_MODE:
                                    print "Command: " + cmd

                                    # https://stackoverflow.com/a/40139101/2292993
                                    def _execute_cmd(cmd):
                                    if os.name == 'nt' or platform.system() == 'Windows':
                                    # set stdin, out, err all to PIPE to get results (other than None) after run the Popen() instance
                                    p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)
                                    else:
                                    # Use bash; the default is sh
                                    p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True, executable="/bin/bash")

                                    # the Popen() instance starts running once instantiated (??)
                                    # additionally, communicate(), or poll() and wait process to terminate
                                    # communicate() accepts optional input as stdin to the pipe (requires setting stdin=subprocess.PIPE above), return out, err as tuple
                                    # if communicate(), the results are buffered in memory

                                    # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
                                    # if error occurs, the stdout is '', which means the below loop is essentially skipped
                                    # A prefix of 'b' or 'B' is ignored in Python 2;
                                    # it indicates that the literal should become a bytes literal in Python 3
                                    # (e.g. when code is automatically converted with 2to3).
                                    # return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')
                                    for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
                                    # # Windows has rn, Unix has n, Old mac has r
                                    # if line not in ['','n','r','rn']: # Don't print blank lines
                                    yield line
                                    while p.poll() is None:
                                    sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
                                    # Empty STDERR buffer
                                    err = p.stderr.read()
                                    if p.returncode != 0:
                                    # responsible for logging STDERR
                                    print("Error: " + str(err))
                                    yield None

                                    out =
                                    for line in _execute_cmd(cmd):
                                    # error did not occur earlier
                                    if line is not None:
                                    # trailing comma to avoid a newline (by print itself) being printed
                                    if output: print line,
                                    out.append(line.strip())
                                    else:
                                    # error occured earlier
                                    out = None
                                    return out
                                    else:
                                    print "Simulation! The command is " + cmd
                                    print ""





                                    share|improve this answer



























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      eg, execute('ls -ahl')
                                      differentiated three/four possible returns and OS platforms:



                                      1. no output, but run successfully

                                      2. output empty line, run successfully

                                      3. run failed

                                      4. output something, run successfully

                                      function below



                                      def execute(cmd, output=True, DEBUG_MODE=False):
                                      """Executes a bash command.
                                      (cmd, output=True)
                                      output: whether print shell output to screen, only affects screen display, does not affect returned values
                                      return: ...regardless of output=True/False...
                                      returns shell output as a list with each elment is a line of string (whitespace stripped both sides) from output
                                      could be
                                      , ie, len()=0 --> no output;
                                      [''] --> output empty line;
                                      None --> error occured, see below

                                      if error ocurs, returns None (ie, is None), print out the error message to screen
                                      """
                                      if not DEBUG_MODE:
                                      print "Command: " + cmd

                                      # https://stackoverflow.com/a/40139101/2292993
                                      def _execute_cmd(cmd):
                                      if os.name == 'nt' or platform.system() == 'Windows':
                                      # set stdin, out, err all to PIPE to get results (other than None) after run the Popen() instance
                                      p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)
                                      else:
                                      # Use bash; the default is sh
                                      p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True, executable="/bin/bash")

                                      # the Popen() instance starts running once instantiated (??)
                                      # additionally, communicate(), or poll() and wait process to terminate
                                      # communicate() accepts optional input as stdin to the pipe (requires setting stdin=subprocess.PIPE above), return out, err as tuple
                                      # if communicate(), the results are buffered in memory

                                      # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
                                      # if error occurs, the stdout is '', which means the below loop is essentially skipped
                                      # A prefix of 'b' or 'B' is ignored in Python 2;
                                      # it indicates that the literal should become a bytes literal in Python 3
                                      # (e.g. when code is automatically converted with 2to3).
                                      # return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')
                                      for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
                                      # # Windows has rn, Unix has n, Old mac has r
                                      # if line not in ['','n','r','rn']: # Don't print blank lines
                                      yield line
                                      while p.poll() is None:
                                      sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
                                      # Empty STDERR buffer
                                      err = p.stderr.read()
                                      if p.returncode != 0:
                                      # responsible for logging STDERR
                                      print("Error: " + str(err))
                                      yield None

                                      out =
                                      for line in _execute_cmd(cmd):
                                      # error did not occur earlier
                                      if line is not None:
                                      # trailing comma to avoid a newline (by print itself) being printed
                                      if output: print line,
                                      out.append(line.strip())
                                      else:
                                      # error occured earlier
                                      out = None
                                      return out
                                      else:
                                      print "Simulation! The command is " + cmd
                                      print ""





                                      share|improve this answer















                                      eg, execute('ls -ahl')
                                      differentiated three/four possible returns and OS platforms:



                                      1. no output, but run successfully

                                      2. output empty line, run successfully

                                      3. run failed

                                      4. output something, run successfully

                                      function below



                                      def execute(cmd, output=True, DEBUG_MODE=False):
                                      """Executes a bash command.
                                      (cmd, output=True)
                                      output: whether print shell output to screen, only affects screen display, does not affect returned values
                                      return: ...regardless of output=True/False...
                                      returns shell output as a list with each elment is a line of string (whitespace stripped both sides) from output
                                      could be
                                      , ie, len()=0 --> no output;
                                      [''] --> output empty line;
                                      None --> error occured, see below

                                      if error ocurs, returns None (ie, is None), print out the error message to screen
                                      """
                                      if not DEBUG_MODE:
                                      print "Command: " + cmd

                                      # https://stackoverflow.com/a/40139101/2292993
                                      def _execute_cmd(cmd):
                                      if os.name == 'nt' or platform.system() == 'Windows':
                                      # set stdin, out, err all to PIPE to get results (other than None) after run the Popen() instance
                                      p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True)
                                      else:
                                      # Use bash; the default is sh
                                      p = subprocess.Popen(cmd, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE, shell=True, executable="/bin/bash")

                                      # the Popen() instance starts running once instantiated (??)
                                      # additionally, communicate(), or poll() and wait process to terminate
                                      # communicate() accepts optional input as stdin to the pipe (requires setting stdin=subprocess.PIPE above), return out, err as tuple
                                      # if communicate(), the results are buffered in memory

                                      # Read stdout from subprocess until the buffer is empty !
                                      # if error occurs, the stdout is '', which means the below loop is essentially skipped
                                      # A prefix of 'b' or 'B' is ignored in Python 2;
                                      # it indicates that the literal should become a bytes literal in Python 3
                                      # (e.g. when code is automatically converted with 2to3).
                                      # return iter(p.stdout.readline, b'')
                                      for line in iter(p.stdout.readline, b''):
                                      # # Windows has rn, Unix has n, Old mac has r
                                      # if line not in ['','n','r','rn']: # Don't print blank lines
                                      yield line
                                      while p.poll() is None:
                                      sleep(.1) #Don't waste CPU-cycles
                                      # Empty STDERR buffer
                                      err = p.stderr.read()
                                      if p.returncode != 0:
                                      # responsible for logging STDERR
                                      print("Error: " + str(err))
                                      yield None

                                      out =
                                      for line in _execute_cmd(cmd):
                                      # error did not occur earlier
                                      if line is not None:
                                      # trailing comma to avoid a newline (by print itself) being printed
                                      if output: print line,
                                      out.append(line.strip())
                                      else:
                                      # error occured earlier
                                      out = None
                                      return out
                                      else:
                                      print "Simulation! The command is " + cmd
                                      print ""






                                      share|improve this answer














                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited Aug 2 '17 at 21:55

























                                      answered Aug 2 '17 at 21:50









                                      Jerry TJerry T

                                      714812




                                      714812















                                          protected by jfs Dec 28 '14 at 12:47



                                          Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                          Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                          Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Use pre created SQLite database for Android project in kotlin

                                          Darth Vader #20

                                          Ondo