Running .spyx files from the command line doesn't work anymore

[williamstein]

Create a file like this:

flat:tmp wstein$ cat a.spyx
print "hello"

We have:

flat:tmp wstein$ sage a.spyx
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/Users/wstein/sage/build/sage/local/bin/sage-sagex", line 5, in <module>
    from sage.misc.interpreter import load_sagex
ImportError: cannot import name load_sagex

Apply

1. attachment: 9191_run_cython.patch to the SCRIPTS repo.
2. attachment: 9191_doctest_spyx.patch to the SAGE library.

Depends on #13533
Depends on #13579
Depends on #13631
Depends on #13681

Component: misc

Author: Karl-Dieter Crisman, Jeroen Demeyer

Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer, Karl-Dieter Crisman

Merged: sage-5.5.beta1

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9191

[kcrisman]

comment:1

Well, no surprise!

sage: sage.misc.interpreter.loa[tab]
sage.misc.interpreter.load_a_file
sage.misc.interpreter.load_cython
sage.misc.interpreter.load_startup_file
sage.misc.interpreter.load_wrap

This is a very easy fix, as it turns out. I haven't got a clue how to doctest it, though.

[kcrisman]

comment:2

GC04855:sage-5.4.beta1-again $ ./sage a.spyx 
Compiling a.spyx...
hello

It works. Needs review.

[kcrisman]

Author: Karl-Dieter Crisman

[jdemeyer]

Description changed:

--- 
+++ 
@@ -23,3 +23,6 @@
 hello
 ```
 
+**Apply**
+1. [attachment: trac_9191-cython.patch](https://github.com/sagemath/sage/files/ticket9191/trac_9191-cython.patch.gz) to the SCRIPTS repo.
+

[jdemeyer]

Description changed:

--- 
+++ 
@@ -24,5 +24,5 @@
 ```
 
 **Apply**
-1. [attachment: trac_9191-cython.patch](https://github.com/sagemath/sage/files/ticket9191/trac_9191-cython.patch.gz) to the SCRIPTS repo.
-
+1. [attachment: 9191_run_cython.patch](https://github.com/sagemath/sage-prod/files/10649487/9191_run_cython.patch.gz) to the SCRIPTS repo.
+2. [attachment: 9191_doctest_spyx.patch](https://github.com/sagemath/sage-prod/files/10649488/9191_doctest_spyx.patch.gz) to the SAGE library.

[jdemeyer]

comment:5

Attachment: 9191_run_cython.patch.gz

I expanded on your patch, added a doctest, renamed sage-sagex to sage-run-cython.

[jdemeyer]

Changed author from Karl-Dieter Crisman to Karl-Dieter Crisman, Jeroen Demeyer

[kcrisman]

comment:6

Wow, nice work! Very minor concerns below.

---

I'm a little concerned about why .pyx files worked before anyway. Did it just make it to the

os.execv(os.path.join(binpath, 'sage-python'), ['sage-python', fn] + opts)

line and sage -python (which is all sage-python is) just knew what to do with it? And this is better for some reason for pyx files, right?

Also, any reason for making the messages print to stderr when they aren't errors? As well as for changing things to the 'new' print statements? I guess you did the work so I shouldn't complain :) but it always means I worry about missing some small detail.

Finally, if you're going to add pyx files to those which this command does, you should probably add a testing part to the doctest patch for that as well...

[kcrisman]

Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer, Karl-Dieter Crisman

[jdemeyer]

comment:8

Replying to @kcrisman:

I'm a little concerned about why .pyx files worked before anyway.

They worked only because they were treated as plain Python files. No Cython was involved. Treating them like .spyx files is the logical thing to do.

Also, any reason for making the messages print to stderr when they aren't errors?

These kind of diagnostic messages are often printed to stderr in Unix-land. For example, gcc -v will output what it's doing to stderr. This makes it much easier to use the output of the script non-interactively: if I want to run a .spyx file in a shell script, I have to manually remove the "Compiling..." line if its output to stdout.

I'm happy with simply removing the "Compiling..." line also.

As well as for changing things to the 'new' print statements?

I really dislike the

print >>file

syntax in Python 2. Besides, it doesn't hurt to be more compatible with Python 3.

Finally, if you're going to add pyx files to those which this command does, you should probably add a testing part to the doctest patch for that as well...

I'm not sure, because running .pyx files from the command line is not documented. The documentation suggests using .spyx files, not .pyx files.