github_repo_scraped
/
repos
/GrahamDumpleton-wrapt-f29f697
/blog
/11-safely-applying-monkey-patches-in-python.md
Safely applying monkey patches in Python | |
======================================== | |
Monkey patching in Python is often see as being one of those things you | |
should never do. Some do regard it as a useful necessity you can't avoid in | |
order to patch bugs in third party code. Others will argue though that with | |
so much software being Open Source these days that you should simply submit | |
a fix to the upstream package maintainer. | |
Monkey patching has its uses well beyond just patching bugs though. The two | |
most commonly used forms of monkey patching in Python which you might not | |
even equate with monkey patching are decorators and the use of mocking | |
libraries to assist in performing unit testing. Another not some common | |
case of monkey patching is to add instrumentation to existing Python code | |
in order to add performance monitoring capabilities. | |
On the issue of decorators I wrote a quite detailed series of blog posts at | |
the start of last year about where decorators can cause problems. The | |
primary problem there was decorators which aren't implemented in a way | |
which preserve proper introspection capabilities, and which don't preserve | |
the correct semantics of the Python descriptor protocol when applied to | |
methods of classes. | |
When one starts to talk about monkey patching arbitrary code, rather than | |
simply applying decorators to your own code, both of these issues become | |
even more important as you could quite easily interfere with the behaviour | |
of the existing code you are monkey patching in unexpected ways. | |
This is especially the case when monkey patching methods of a class. This | |
is because when using decorators they would be applied while the class | |
definition is being constructed. When doing monkey patching you are coming | |
in after the class definition already exists and as a result you have to | |
deal with a number of non obvious problems. | |
Now when I went and wrote the blog posts last year on decorators it was | |
effectively the result of what I learnt from implementing the wrapt | |
package. Although that package is known as providing a way for creating | |
well behaved decorators, that wasn't the primary aim in creating the | |
package. The real reason for creating the package was actually to implement | |
robust mechanisms for monkey patching code. It just so happened that the | |
same underlying principles and mechanism required to safely do monkey | |
patching apply to implementing the function wrappers required for | |
decorators. | |
What I am going to do with this blog post is start to explain the monkey | |
patching capabilities of the wrapt package. | |
Creating a decorator | |
-------------------- | |
Before we jump into monkey patching of arbitrary code we first need to | |
recap how the wrapt package could be used to create a decorator. The | |
primary pattern for this was: | |
```python | |
import wrapt | |
import inspect | |
@wrapt.decorator | |
def universal(wrapped, instance, args, kwargs): | |
if instance is None: | |
if inspect.isclass(wrapped): | |
# Decorator was applied to a class. | |
return wrapped(*args, **kwargs) | |
else: | |
# Decorator was applied to a function or staticmethod. | |
return wrapped(*args, **kwargs) | |
else: | |
if inspect.isclass(instance): | |
# Decorator was applied to a classmethod. | |
return wrapped(*args, **kwargs) | |
else: | |
# Decorator was applied to an instancemethod. | |
return wrapped(*args, **kwargs) | |
``` | |
A special feature of the decorators that could be created by the wrapt | |
package was that within the decorator you could determine the context the | |
decorator was used in. That is, whether the decorator was applied to a | |
class, a function or static method, a class method or an instance method. | |
For the case where the decorator was applied to an instance method you are | |
provided a separate argument to the instance of the class. For a class | |
method the separate argument is a reference to the class itself. In both | |
cases these are separated from the 'args' and 'kwargs' argument so you do | |
not need to fiddle around with extracting it yourself. | |
A decorator created using wrapt is therefore what I call a universal | |
decorator. In other words, it is possible to create a single decorator | |
implementation that can be used across functions, methods and classes and | |
you can tell at the time of the call the scenario and adjust the behaviour | |
of the decorator accordingly. You no longer have to create multiple | |
implementations of a decorator and ensure that you are using the correct | |
one in each scenario. | |
Using this decorator is then no different to any other way that decorators | |
would be used. | |
```python | |
class Example(object): | |
@universal | |
def name(self): | |
return 'name' | |
``` | |
For those who have used Python long enough though, you would remember that | |
the syntax for applying a decorator in this way hasn't always existed. | |
Before the '@' syntax was allowed you could still create and use | |
decorators, but you had to be more explicit in applying them. That is, you | |
had to write: | |
```python | |
class Example(object): | |
def name(self): | |
return 'name' | |
name = universal(name) | |
``` | |
This can still be done and when written this way it makes it clearer how | |
decorators are in a way a form of monkey patching. This is because often | |
all they are doing is introducing a wrapper around some existing function | |
which allows the call to the original function to be intercepted. The | |
wrapper function then allows you to perform actions either before or after | |
the call to the original function, or allow you to modify the arguments | |
passed to the wrapped function, or otherwise modify the result in some way, | |
or even substitute the result completely. | |
What is an important distinction though with decorators is that the wrapper | |
function is being applied at the time the class containing the method is | |
being defined. In contrast more arbitrary monkey patching involves coming | |
in some time later after the class definition has been created and applying | |
the function wrapper at that point. | |
In effect you are doing: | |
```python | |
class Example(object): | |
def name(self): | |
return 'name' | |
Example.name = universal(Example.name) | |
``` | |
Although a decorator function created using the wrapt package can be used | |
in this way and will still work as expected, in general I would discourage | |
this pattern for monkey patching an existing method of a class. | |
This is because it isn't actually equivalent to doing the same thing within | |
the body of the class when it is defined. In particular the access of | |
'Example.name' actually invokes the descriptor protocol and so is returning | |
an instance method. We can see this by running the code: | |
```python | |
class Example(object): | |
def name(self): | |
return 'name' | |
print type(name) | |
print type(Example.name) | |
``` | |
which produces: | |
``` | |
<type 'function'> | |
<type 'instancemethod'> | |
``` | |
In general this may not matter, but I have seen some really strange corner | |
cases where the distinction has mattered. To deal with this therefore, the | |
wrapt package provides an alternate way of applying wrapper functions when | |
doing monkey patching after the fact. In the case of adding wrappers to | |
methods of class, this will use a mechanism which avoids any problems | |
caused by this subtle distinction. | |
Adding function wrappers | |
------------------------ | |
For general monkey patching using the wrapt package, rather than using the | |
decorator factory to create a decorator and then apply that to a function, | |
you instead define just the wrapper function and then use a separate | |
function to apply it to the target function. | |
The prototype for the wrapper function is the same as before, but we simply | |
do not apply the '@wrapt.decorator' to it. | |
```python | |
def wrapper(wrapped, instance, args, kwargs): | |
return wrapped(*args, **kwargs) | |
``` | |
To add the wrapper function to a target function we now use the | |
'wrapt.wrap_function_wrapper()' function. | |
```python | |
class Example(object): | |
def name(self): | |
return 'name' | |
import wrapt | |
wrapt.wrap_function_wrapper(Example, 'name', wrapper) | |
``` | |
In this case we had the class in the same code file, but we could also have | |
done: | |
```python | |
import example | |
import wrapt | |
wrapt.wrap_function_wrapper(example, 'Example.name', wrapper) | |
``` | |
That is, we provide the first argument as the module the target is defined | |
in, with the second argument being the object path to the method we wished | |
to apply the wrapper to. | |
We could also skip importing the module altogether and just used the name | |
of the module. | |
```python | |
import wrapt | |
wrapt.wrap_function_wrapper('example', 'Example.name', wrapper) | |
``` | |
Just to prove that just about anything can be simplified by the user of a | |
decorator, we finally could write the whole thing as: | |
```python | |
import wrapt | |
@wrapt.patch_function_wrapper('example', 'Example.name') | |
def wrapper(wrapped, instance, args, kwargs): | |
return wrapped(*args, **kwargs) | |
``` | |
What will happen in this final example is that as soon as the module this | |
is contained in is imported, the specified target function defined in the | |
'example' module will automatically be monkey patched with the wrapper | |
function. | |
Delayed patching is bad | |
----------------------- | |
Now a very big warning is required at this point. Applying monkey patches | |
after the fact like this will not always work. | |
The problem is that you are trying to apply a patch after the module has | |
been imported. In this case the 'wrapt.wrap_function_wrapper()' call will | |
ensure the module is imported if it wasn't already, but if the module had | |
already been imported previously by some other part of your code or by a | |
third party package you may have issues. | |
In particular, it the target function you were trying to monkey patch was a | |
normal global function of the module, some other code could have grabbed a | |
direct reference to it by doing: | |
```python | |
from example import function | |
``` | |
If you come along later and have: | |
```python | |
import wrapt | |
@wrapt.patch_function_wrapper('example', 'function') | |
def wrapper(wrapped, instance, args, kwargs): | |
return wrapped(*args, **kwargs) | |
``` | |
then yes the copy of the function contained in the target module will have | |
the wrapper applied, but the reference to it created by the other code will | |
not have the wrapper. | |
To ensure that your wrapper is always used in this scenario you would need | |
to patch it not just in the original module, but in any modules where a | |
reference had been stored. This would only be practical in very limited | |
circumstances because in reality you are not going to have any idea where | |
the function might be getting used if it is a common function. | |
This exact problem is one of the shortcomings in the way that monkey | |
patching is applied by packages such as gevent or eventlet. Both these | |
packages do delayed patching of functions and so are sensitive to the order | |
in which modules are imported. To get around this problem at least for | |
modules in the Python standard library, the 'time.sleep()' function which | |
they need to monkey patch, has to be patched not only in the 'time' module, | |
but also in the 'threading' module. | |
There are some techniques one can use to try and avoid such problems but I | |
will defer explaining those to some time down the track. | |
Instead for my next blog post I want to move onto some examples for where | |
monkey patching could be used by looking at how wrapt can be used as | |
alternative to packages such as the mock package when doing testing. | |