Skip to main content

Python: Coding in the Debugger for Beginners

Python has a wonderful interactive interpreter (i.e. shell). IPython is a third-party Python shell that's even nicer, but that's a topic for another post. It's fairly common to code in the shell until you have the code working correctly, and then copy-and-paste it into your program. Developing super-interactively is a great way to keep bugs at bay.

However, sometimes you need more setup before you can start coding. For instance, when writing a Web app in, say Pylons, you might need an actual request and a database connection before you can start coding what you want. You might even need a form POST before you can start. Ideally, you'd be able to start the shell from in the middle of your application at just the right spot. I'm pretty sure that someone out there knows how to get IPython to do the right thing, but I find using pdb, the Python debugger, really helpful for this purpose.

First of all, add the following wherever you want to break into the debugger, "import pdb; pdb.set_trace()". If you need some more help about the debugger itself, type "?". Now, you'll want to see what variables you have to play with, so use "dir()". Let's say the "request.environ" object has what you want, but you're not sure under what key. Well, start by printing it, "p request.environ". If you need a nicer looking version, try "from pprint import pprint; pprint(request.environ)". If you find the right key, say 'spam', then print that, "pprint(request.environ['spam'])". Maybe spam is an object, and you need to know what methods it has, "pprint(dir(request.environ['spam']))".

In the Python shell, you can use "help(x)" to find out more about x if x is a module, class, or function. If x is an object, try "help(x.__class__)". In the debugger, help() tends to not work for a reason that someone smarter than me probably understands. However, you can still do things like "p x.__class__.__doc__".

The debugger isn't very good for writing new functions or multi-line statements, but it's great for evaluating simple expressions. Once you have the code you want, you can copy-and-paste it back into your program and repeat the process. Writing code in this way is really helpful so that you can deal with the details one at a time without trying to debug a larger program that might have more than one bug. That's not to say I don't make heavy use of print-statement debugging, but using pdb is great if you want to "look around."


Anonymous said…
The pretty printer can be invoked in the debugger directly, without the import, by the 'pp' command
Paddy3118 said…
Anonymous must have pp autoloaded as part of his setup.
The default does not have the prettyprinter loaded.
- Paddy.
Unknown said…
pp works for me too, I don't remember having to configure anything for that. Just looked at my .pdbrc -- lots of other stuff but not pp.

pp is in the standard list of debugger commands.
jjinux said…
> The pretty printer can be invoked in the debugger directly, without the import, by the 'pp' command

Oh, helpful. Thanks!
Jordan G said…
Since you mentioned IPython, I thought I'd drop this in here:

Its really easy to embed IPython into your programs and use them in a similar (but MUCH more powerful way) to the debugger.
Just put:
from IPython.Shell import IPShellEmbed
at the top of your program, and when you would break into the debugger, run:

This allows you to poke at the state of your program with all the power of IPython!
jjinux said…
> This allows you to poke at the state of your program with all the power of IPython!

Awesome! That's the magical incantation I was looking for!

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p