I have searched through the whole internet and didn't find anything useful. Could please anyone suggest how to make a variable explorer in Sublime text 3 like in Spyder?
(Spyder maintainer here) If you want to create a representation of your current namespace (what is shown in the Variable Explorer), you can take a look at how we build it here, specially the value_to_display function, the one really responsible for that.
The viewers (for lists, dicts, Numpy arrays and DataFrames) are implemented in PyQt, and you can find them here.
To bring the value of a variable from a running IPython kernel and pass it to the viewers, we created our own kernel that serializes a value and sends it to Spyder. In Spyder we deserialize it and pass it to the Viewers here (look for the CreateEditor method).
The process is really more complex than this little explanation, but I hope you can get an idea of how it works.
Related
I often work on very small pieces of code, on the order of max 100 lines, especially in scenarios when I learn something new and just play with the code, or when I debug.
Because I frequently change code and want to see how that changes the contents of my variables and output, it is tedious to either
1) hit the debug button, wait for the debugger to start (in my case I use PyCharm as an IDE) and then inspect the output
or
2) insert some prints for the variables that I want to observe and compile the code (slightly faster than starting the debugger).
To eliminate this time consuming workflow, where I constantly hit the compile or debug button every few seconds, is there an IDE where I can set a watch to a few variables and then each time I change in my source code a single character (or, alternatively, every half a second) the IDE automatically compiles everything and I will see then new values of my variables?
(Of course while I intermediatelychange the code the compilation will give errors, but that is ok. This feature would be a big time saver. Maybe PyCharm has it already implemented? If not, ideally I would hope for a language agnostic IDE, similar to PyCharm, where variants for Java etc. also exist. If not, since I code in Python, a Python IDE would also be great.)
This might not be exactly what you are looking for but PyCharm (and IntelliJ and probably others) can run tests automatically when code changes.
In the PyCharm Run toolbar look for "Toggle auto-test" button.
For example in PyCharm you can create test cases that just runs the code you're interested in and prints the variables you need.
Then create a run configuration that runs only those tests and set it to run automatically.
For more details see PyCharm documentation on rerunning tests.
The Scala plugin for IntelliJ has exactly what you need in the form of "worksheets," where every expression is automatically recompiled when its value or the value of anything it references is changed.
Since (based on your usage of PyCharm), I assume you're using Python primarily, I think Jupyter notebook is your best bet. Jupyter is language agnostic but began as specific to python (it was called IPython notebook for this reason).
I have not tried it, but this guide purports to show to get Jupyter to work with PyCharm
EDIT: Here is another possibility called vim worksheet; I haven't tried it, but it purports to do the same thing as Scala worksheets, but in vim, and for a number of languages, including Python.
The python Spyder IDE (comes with Anaconda) has this feature. When you hit run, you can see all of the variables at the top right of the screen and you can click on them to see their values (this is very helpful with Numpy Arrays too!).
If your interest is in the actual workflow improvement:
I used to program like you, looking at what my variables changed to, and design or debug my code based on such modifications, however is way to inefficient and costly to set what variables to watch over and over again and besides when if it bugs, you have to go all over again for the debugging process.
I changed my design process to better my workflow and adopted Test Driven Development (TDD), with it you can look at tools for you specific implementations or IDEs but the principles and workflow stay with you, with it you stop looking on how the variables changed and instead focus on what the functions should do, meaning faster iteration (with real time tools for testing), easier debugging and far more better, safe refactoring.
My favorite tool for it is Cucumber, and agnostic tool (for IDE or programming language) which help you test your code scenarios and at the same time documenting your features.
Hope it helps, i know its a very opinionated answer but it's an honest advices for improvement in ones workflow.
You should try Thonny. It is developed by Institute of Computer Science of University of Tartu.
The 4 features which might be of help to you are below (verbatim from the website):
No-hassle variables.
Once you're done with hello-worlds, select View → Variables and see how your programs and shell commands affect Python variables.
Simple debugger.
Just press Ctrl+F5 instead of F5 and you can run your programs step-by-step, no breakpoints needed. Press F6 for a big step and F7 for a small step. Steps follow program structure, not just code lines.
Stepping through statements
Step through expression evaluation. If you use small steps, then you can even see how Python evaluates your expressions. You can think of this light-blue box as a piece of paper where Python replaces subexpressions with their values, piece-by-piece.
Visualization of expression evaluation
Faithful representation of function calls.
Stepping into a function call opens a new window with separate local variables table and code pointer. Good understanding of how function calls work is especially important for understanding recursion.
I am new to Pandas, trying to learn the basics from lecture videos. In one of these the presenter demonstrates that one can call help on methods using ??.
For example if I have loaded a dataframe df then typing df.getitem?? should print the docstring as well as the source code to the console. This would be really great to have but it doesn't work for me! I tried different variants of the command and also tried to find a comment online on this, without success.
What do I need to type in order to retrieve the docstring as well as the source code of a Pandas method? Thanks a lot for your help !
(I am using Python 3.5 and PyCharm in case that makes a difference)
I believe that your lecturer was using ipython as this does support dynamic object information. For instance this is the output in ipython when you do df.__getitem__?? you see the following:
I strongly recommend ipython for interactive python development, you'll find a lot of devs using this for data exploration and analysis, the workbook is really useful for saving your commands and the output
I'm looking for a way to "enter" a module in the REPL, so that I can access all symbols without qualification (not just the exported ones), and any function (re)defined at the REPL gets in the specified module. (Basically this is the functionality of Common Lisp's in-package macro.)
This would be useful in a REPL-oriented workflow, as I would be able to write the same code in the REPL as in the module I am developing.
The manual recommends a workflow where I qualify everything, but that seems annoying.
I started a package called REPLMods.jl for this a while back. It should probably be polished up, but I haven't had the time.
I spoke to core Julia members and there was interest in getting it merged into base once things were clean, but again, no time!
I know this isn't quite what you're asking, but just in case the 'obvious' had not occured to you (or future visitors to the question), assuming you loaded a module with an annoyingly cumbersome name, e.g.
import LaTeXStrings
and you don't want to have to type LaTeXStrings all the time just to explore its accessibles, i.e.
LaTeXStrings.[TAB]
you can just assign the imported module as a whole to another variable, i.e.
const l = LaTeXStrings
I'm sure in the absence of a more appropriate built-in solution, at least typing l.[TAB] as opposed to LaTeXStrings.[TAB]is a lot more tolerable :)
(I find it odd, in fact, that julia doesn't seem to support the import LaTeXStrings as l syntax ...)
It's 2020, I'm using Julia 1.4, and was unable to get REPLMods.jl to work. I think the following seem good enough for the time being:
ExportAll.jl - see Exporting all symbols in Julia for a discussion (just that one shouldn't ExportAll to replace normal export)
and Revise.jl
I find myself frequently developing new Julia modules while at the same time using those modules for my work. So I'll have an IPython (Jupyter) notebook, with something like:
using DataFrames
using MyModule
Then I'll do something like:
x = myfunction(7, 3)
But I'll have to modify that function, and unfortunately by that point I can't simply do
using MyModule
again. I'm not really sure why; I thought that calling using simply declares available modules in order to make the global scope aware of them, and then when a name is actually needed, the runtime searches for the definition among the currently loaded modules (starting with Main).
So shouldn't using MyModule simply just refresh the definitions of the items in the already declared module? Why do I have to completely stop and restart the kernel in order to use my updated functions? (Is it because names are bound only once to functions that are declared using the function keyword?)
I've looked at Julia Workflow Tips, but I don't find the whole Tmp, tst.jl system very simple or elegant... at least for a notebook.
Any suggestions?
I think there's a lot of truth in this statement attributed to one of the Juno developers: Jupyter notebook is for working with data. Juno IDE is for working with code.
Jupyter is great for using modules in a notebook style that the output you're getting is reproducible. Juno and the REPL have less overhead that let you keep starting new sessions (faster testing, and fixes the problem you noted), have multiple tabs open to follow code around a complex module, and can use the debugger (in v0.5). They address different development issues for difference stages of use. I think you're pushing against the tide if you're using the wrong tool for the wrong job.
I want to evaluate my content blocks before running my test suite but the closures' property names is in bytecode already. I'm ooking for the cleanest solution (compared with parsing source manually).
Already tried solution outlined in this post (and I'd still wind up doing some RegEx/parsing) but could only get it to work via script execution engine. It failed in IDE and GroovyConsole. Rather than embedding a Groovy script in project's code, I thought I'd try using Geb's native classes.
Is building on the suggestion about extending Geb Navigators here viable for Geb's PageContentSupport class whose contentTemplates contain a LinkedHashMap of exactly what I need? If yes, would someone provide guidance? If no, any suggestions?
It is currently not possible to get hold of all content elements for a given page/module. Feel free to create an issue for this in Geb's bug tracker, but remember that all that Geb can provide is either a list of content element names or a map from these names to closures that create these elements.
Having that information isn't a generic solution to your problem because it's possible for content elements to take parameters and there are situations where your content elements will be available on the page only after some other actions are performed (for example you have to click on button to reveal a section of a page that uses ajax to retrieve it's content). So I'm afraid that simply going over all elements and checking if they don't throw any errors will not cut it.
I'm still struggling to see what would "evaluating" all content elements prior to running the suite buy you. Are you after verifying that your content elements still work to get a faster feedback than running the whole suite? I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to fully automate detection of content definitions that don't work anymore. In my view it will be more effort than it's worth.