I am running code from the book programming in Lua... http://www.lua.org/pil/3.6.html
when I run this code in the terminal interpreter... it continues reading input forever...
list = nil
for line in io.lines() do
list = {next=list, value=line}
end
Ctrl C returns me to the prompt/bash. Is there another command to break? How do I break/return from a chunk of lua code without exiting the interpreter?
By pressing Ctrl-C in a Unix-like system, you are sending your process the signal of SIGINT, which by default will terminate the process.
Your program continues reading from input forever because it's blocking in the call of io.lines(), which keeps reading from standard input. To interrupt it, send your terminal an EOF, this is done by pressing Ctrl-D in a Unix-like system.
On Windows, the key to send EOF is Ctrl-Z.
You can indicate the end of input for stdin by using either Ctrl-Z or Ctrl-D.
CTRL-U deletes all the characters before the cursor position, therefore the whole line. It also works like this in a Linux shell.
Related
I'm trying to hack together a little CLI for Windows and, inspired by James Smith's Elixirconf talk, I was trying to use a Port to drive the interaction. So this is what I tried:
Interactive Elixir (0.14.3) - press Ctrl+C to exit (type h() ENTER for help)
iex(1)> p = Port.open({:spawn,"clip"},[:stderr_to_stdout, :in, :exit_status])
#Port<0.1048>
iex(2)> send(p,"This is a test")
"This is a test"
The "clip" utility simply takes whatever is piped into it and puts it on Windows clipboard. If you were to call it from the command line, you'd call it like this
dir | clip
So as far as I can tell nothing's getting to the clipboard via my test. I just wanted to ask if I'm sending the input to the stdio in the right fashion--I mean do I want to use send for that?
Interestingly if I do this:
p = Port.open({:spawn, "clip"}, [:stderr_to_stdout, :exit_status]) #Note no :in parameter
send(p,"This is a test")
I get this:
** (EXIT from #PID<0.45.0>) :badsig
I can't tell if the IO is actually getting sent to clip or not but I just wanted to confirm I'm doing the command correctly.
Windows 7 SP1
You don't need :in and you need to pass to the port {:stream, :binary} to be able to send to it bare strings.
Also try using port_command instead of sending to the port pid. http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/erlang.html#port_command-2
Although I am quite familiar with Tcl this is a beginner question. I would like to read and write from a pipe. I would like a solution in pure Tcl and not use a library like Expect. I copied an example from the tcl wiki but could not get it running.
My code is:
cd /tmp
catch {
console show
update
}
proc go {} {
puts "executing go"
set pipe [open "|cat" RDWR]
fconfigure $pipe -buffering line -blocking 0
fileevent $pipe readable [list piperead $pipe]
if {![eof $pipe]} {
puts $pipe "hello cat program!"
flush $pipe
set got [gets $pipe]
puts "result: $got"
}
}
go
The output is executing go\n result:, however I would expect that reading a value from the pipe would return the line that I have sent to the cat program.
What is my error?
--
EDIT:
I followed potrzebie's answer and got a small example working. That's enough to get me going. A quick workaround to test my setup was the following code (not a real solution but a quick fix for the moment).
cd /home/stephan/tmp
catch {
console show
update
}
puts "starting pipe"
set pipe [open "|cat" RDWR]
fconfigure $pipe -buffering line -blocking 0
after 10
puts $pipe "hello cat!"
flush $pipe
set got [gets $pipe]
puts "got from pipe: $got"
Writing to the pipe and flushing won't make the OS multitasking immediately leave your program and switch to the cat program. Try putting after 1000 between the puts and the gets command, and you'll see that you'll probably get the string back. cat has then been given some time slices and has had the chance to read it's input and write it's output.
You can't control when cat reads your input and writes it back, so you'll have to either use fileevent and enter the event loop to wait (or periodically call update), or periodically try reading from the stream. Or you can keep it in blocking mode, in which case gets will do the waiting for you. It will block until there's a line to read, but meanwhile no other events will be responded to. A GUI for example, will stop responding.
The example seem to be for Tk and meant to be run by wish, which enters the event loop automatically at the end of the script. Add the piperead procedure and either run the script with wish or add a vwait command to the end of the script and run it with tclsh.
PS: For line-buffered I/O to work for a pipe, both programs involved have to use it (or no buffering). Many programs (grep, sed, etc) use full buffering when they're not connected to a terminal. One way to prevent them to, is with the unbuffer program, which is part of Expect (you don't have to write an Expect script, it's a stand-alone program that just happens to be included with the Expect package).
set pipe [open "|[list unbuffer grep .]" {RDWR}]
I guess you're executing the code from http://wiki.tcl.tk/3846, the page entitled "Pipe vs Expect". You seem to have omitted the definition of the piperead proc, indeed, when I copy-and-pasted the code from your question, I got an error invalid command name "piperead". If you copy-and-paste the definition from the wiki, you should find that the code works. It certainly did for me.
I need to reboot System through a Lua Script.
I need to write some string before the Reboot happens and need to write a string in a Lua
script once the Reboot is done.
Example :
print("Before Reboot System")
Reboot the System through Lua script
print("After Reboot System")
How would I accomplish this?
You can use os.execute to issue system commands. For Windows, it's shutdown -r, for Posix systems it's just reboot. Your Lua code will therefore look like this:
Be aware that part of the reboot command is stopping active programs, like your Lua script. That means that any data stored in RAM will be lost. You need to write any data you want to keep to disk, using, for instance, table serialization.
Unfortunately, without more knowledge of your environment, I can't tell you how to call the script again. You could be able to append a call to your script to the end of ~/.bashrc or similar.
Make sure that loading this data and starting at a point after you call your reboot function is the first thing that you do when you come back! You don't want to get stuck in an endless reboot loop where the first thing your computer does when it turns on is to turn itself off. Something like this should work:
local function is_rebooted()
-- Presence of file indicates reboot status
if io.open("Rebooted.txt", "r") then
os.remove("Rebooted.txt")
return true
else
return false
end
end
local function reboot_system()
local f = assert(io.open("Rebooted.txt", "w"))
f:write("Restarted! Call On_Reboot()")
-- Do something to make sure the script is called upon reboot here
-- First line of package.config is directory separator
-- Assume that '\' means it's Windows
local is_windows = string.find(_G.package.config:sub(1,1), "\\")
if is_windows then
os.execute("shutdown -r");
else
os.execute("reboot")
end
end
local function before_reboot()
print("Before Reboot System")
reboot_system()
end
local function after_reboot()
print("After Reboot System")
end
-- Execution begins here !
if not is_rebooted() then
before_reboot()
else
after_reboot()
end
(Warning - untested code. I didn't feel like rebooting. :)
There is no way to do what you are asking in Lua. You may be able to do this using os.execute depending on your system and set up but Lua's libraries only include what is possible in the standard c libraries which does not include operating system specific functionality like restart.
I want to run tail on a named pipe to facilitate some binary logfile processing. The problem is that mysterious data is being added to the beginning of the stream. I run my tests by starting the erlang process with the opened port (open_port) and then I use another shell to cat the bin into the named pipe.
Here is a simple function for getting data from the port:
bin_from_tail() ->
open_port({spawn,"/usr/bin/tail -F named_pipe"},
[binary,in,eof]),
receive
{_,{data,<<Data/binary>>}} -> Data
end.
So here are two ways for me to grab the same data...
Create the named pipe
mkfifo named_pipe
This command blocks until you run "cat log.bin > named_pipe" from another shell
{ok,TailBin} = file:read_file(log.bin).
Read the entire file into memory using the erlang file library
FileBin = file:read_file(log.in).
But TailBin and FileBin are not the same! TailBin has a mysterious 120-byte string at the beginning:
<<40,6,161,69,172,216,56,14,100,0,80,6,0,0,0>>
Thanks for the idea about the endlessly looping cat/restarting a dead port. It appears that named pipes buffer just a little bit, so if the port opens up fast enough the writer process (another program) won't crash! Definitely risky stuff, but as far as hacks go... it works.
Because all the mailing list posts just said do this, do that without examples, I'm going to post how mine works! If anyone wants to offer up improvements, please feel free to do so. My solution:
read() ->
Port = open_port({spawn,"/bin/cat /path/to/pipe"},
[binary,in,eof]),
do_read(Port).
do_read(Port) ->
receive
{Port,{data,<<Data/binary>>}} ->
case do_something:with(Data) of
ok ->
io:format("G") % Good
Any ->
io:format("B") % Bad
end;
{Port,eof} ->
read();
Any ->
io:format("No match fifo_client:do_read/1, ~p~n",[Any])
end,
do_read(Port).
I found the same thing happened outside erlang. The problem is that tail is trying to show you the end of the file, not the whole file. If you use it on a normal file, anything written would be new, and picked up by -f, but in this case it looks like tail is waiting until the end of the file (the eof that comes through the pipe) and then showing the last 10 lines (treating the binary as text).
tail -F -c 9999999
(assuming your log is 9999999 bytes or less) would probably work.
Maybe try using cat instead of tail -F, that seemed to work for me. Then you just need to avoid the fact that cat exits upon eof, which I assume you were trying to avoid by using tail.
So a shell script which loops cat endlessly, maybe?
Or get erlang to restart close and recreate the port when it dies, since you're getting the eof signal anyway. Or use the exit_status flag to open_port to be signalled when the process exits, incase you need to distinguish eof and process exit. (If you use both exit_status and eof, the eof never comes, a brief test with cat < /dev/null indicates)
I wrote the following two functions, and call the second ("callAndWait") from JavaScript running inside Windows Script Host. My overall intent is to call one command line program from another. That is, I'm running the initial scripting using cscript, and then trying to run something else (Ant) from that script.
function readAllFromAny(oExec)
{
if (!oExec.StdOut.AtEndOfStream)
return oExec.StdOut.ReadLine();
if (!oExec.StdErr.AtEndOfStream)
return "STDERR: " + oExec.StdErr.ReadLine();
return -1;
}
// Execute a command line function....
function callAndWait(execStr) {
var oExec = WshShell.Exec(execStr);
while (oExec.Status == 0)
{
WScript.Sleep(100);
var output;
while ( (output = readAllFromAny(oExec)) != -1) {
WScript.StdOut.WriteLine(output);
}
}
}
Unfortunately, when I run my program, I don't get immediate feedback about what the called program is doing. Instead, the output seems to come in fits and starts, sometimes waiting until the original program has finished, and sometimes it appears to have deadlocked. What I really want to do is have the spawned process actually share the same StdOut as the calling process, but I don't see a way to do that. Just setting oExec.StdOut = WScript.StdOut doesn't work.
Is there an alternate way to spawn processes that will share the StdOut & StdErr of the launching process? I tried using "WshShell.Run(), but that gives me a "permission denied" error. That's problematic, because I don't want to have to tell my clients to change how their Windows environment is configured just to run my program.
What can I do?
You cannot read from StdErr and StdOut in the script engine in this way, as there is no non-blocking IO as Code Master Bob says. If the called process fills up the buffer (about 4KB) on StdErr while you are attempting to read from StdOut, or vice-versa, then you will deadlock/hang. You will starve while waiting for StdOut and it will block waiting for you to read from StdErr.
The practical solution is to redirect StdErr to StdOut like this:
sCommandLine = """c:\Path\To\prog.exe"" Argument1 argument2"
Dim oExec
Set oExec = WshShell.Exec("CMD /S /C "" " & sCommandLine & " 2>&1 """)
In other words, what gets passed to CreateProcess is this:
CMD /S /C " "c:\Path\To\prog.exe" Argument1 argument2 2>&1 "
This invokes CMD.EXE, which interprets the command line. /S /C invokes a special parsing rule so that the first and last quote are stripped off, and the remainder used as-is and executed by CMD.EXE. So CMD.EXE executes this:
"c:\Path\To\prog.exe" Argument1 argument2 2>&1
The incantation 2>&1 redirects prog.exe's StdErr to StdOut. CMD.EXE will propagate the exit code.
You can now succeed by reading from StdOut and ignoring StdErr.
The downside is that the StdErr and StdOut output get mixed together. As long as they are recognisable you can probably work with this.
Another technique which might help in this situation is to redirect the standard error stream of the command to accompany the standard output.
Do this by adding "%comspec% /c" to the front and "2>&1" to the end of the execStr string.
That is, change the command you run from:
zzz
to:
%comspec% /c zzz 2>&1
The "2>&1" is a redirect instruction which causes the StdErr output (file descriptor 2) to be written to the StdOut stream (file descriptor 1).
You need to include the "%comspec% /c" part because it is the command interpreter which understands about the command line redirect. See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee156605.aspx
Using "%comspec%" instead of "cmd" gives portability to a wider range of Windows versions.
If your command contains quoted string arguments, it may be tricky to get them right:
the specification for how cmd handles quotes after "/c" seems to be incomplete.
With this, your script needs only to read the StdOut stream, and will receive both standard output and standard error.
I used this with "net stop wuauserv", which writes to StdOut on success (if the service is running)
and StdErr on failure (if the service is already stopped).
First, your loop is broken in that it always tries to read from oExec.StdOut first. If there is no actual output then it will hang until there is. You wont see any StdErr output until StdOut.atEndOfStream becomes true (probably when the child terminates). Unfortunately, there is no concept of non-blocking I/O in the script engine. That means calling read and having it return immediately if there is no data in the buffer. Thus there is probably no way to get this loop to work as you want. Second, WShell.Run does not provide any properties or methods to access the standard I/O of the child process. It creates the child in a separate window, totally isolated from the parent except for the return code. However, if all you want is to be able to SEE the output from the child then this might be acceptable. You will also be able to interact with the child (input) but only through the new window (see SendKeys).
As for using ReadAll(), this would be even worse since it collects all the input from the stream before returning so you wouldn't see anything at all until the stream was closed. I have no idea why the example places the ReadAll in a loop which builds a string, a single if (!WScript.StdIn.AtEndOfStream) should be sufficient to avoid exceptions.
Another alternative might be to use the process creation methods in WMI. How standard I/O is handled is not clear and there doesn't appear to be any way to allocate specific streams as StdIn/Out/Err. The only hope would be that the child would inherit these from the parent but that's what you want, isn't it? (This comment based upon an idea and a little bit of research but no actual testing.)
Basically, the scripting system is not designed for complicated interprocess communication/synchronisation.
Note: Tests confirming the above were performed on Windows XP Sp2 using Script version 5.6. Reference to current (5.8) manuals suggests no change.
Yes, the Exec function seems to be broken when it comes to terminal output.
I have been using a similar function function ConsumeStd(e) {WScript.StdOut.Write(e.StdOut.ReadAll());WScript.StdErr.Write(e.StdErr.ReadAll());} that I call in a loop similar to yours. Not sure if checking for EOF and reading line by line is better or worse.
You might have hit the deadlock issue described on this Microsoft Support site.
One suggestion is to always read both from stdout and stderr.
You could change readAllFromAny to:
function readAllFromAny(oExec)
{
var output = "";
if (!oExec.StdOut.AtEndOfStream)
output = output + oExec.StdOut.ReadLine();
if (!oExec.StdErr.AtEndOfStream)
output = output + "STDERR: " + oExec.StdErr.ReadLine();
return output ? output : -1;
}