I have scrapyd server with several spiders running at same time, I start the spiders one by one using the schedule.json endpoint. All spiders are writing contents on common file using a pipeline
class JsonWriterPipeline(object):
def __init__(self, json_filename):
# self.json_filepath = json_filepath
self.json_filename = json_filename
self.file = open(self.json_filename, 'wb')
#classmethod
def from_crawler(cls, crawler):
save_path='/tmp/'
json_filename=crawler.settings.get('json_filename', 'FM_raw_export.json')
completeName = os.path.join(save_path, json_filename)
return cls(
completeName
)
def process_item(self, item, spider):
line = json.dumps(dict(item)) + "\n"
self.file.write(line)
return item
After the spiders are running I can see how they are collecting data correctly, items are stored in files XXXX.jl and the spiders works correctly, however the contents crawled are not reflected on common file. Spiders seems to work well however the pipeline is not doing well their job and is not collecting data into common file.
I also noticed that only one spider is writing at same time on file.
I don't see any good reason to do what you do :) You can change the json_filename setting by setting arguments on your scrapyd schedule.json Request. Then you can make each spider to generate slightly different files that you merge with post-processing or at query time. You can also write JSON files similar to what you have by just setting the FEED_URI value (example). If you write to single file simultaneously from multiple processes (especially when you open with 'wb' mode) you're looking for corrupt data.
Edit:
After understanding a bit better what you need - in this case - it's scrapyd starting multiple crawls running different spiders where each one crawls a different website. The consumer process is monitoring a single file continuously.
There are several solutions including:
named pipes
Relatively easy to implement and ok for very small Items only (see here)
RabbitMQ or some other queueing mechanism
Great solution but might be a bit of an overkill
A database e.g. SQLite based solution
Nice and simple but likely requires some coding (custom consumer)
A nice inotifywait-based or other filesystem monitoring solution
Nice and likely easy to implement
The last one seems like the most attractive option to me. When scrapy crawl finishes (spider_closed signal), move, copy or create a soft link for the FEED_URL file to a directory that you monitor with a script like this. mv or ln is an atomic unix operation so you should be fine. Hack the script to append the new file on your tmp file that you feed once to your consumer program.
By using this way, you use the default feed exporters to write your files. The end-solution is so simple that you don't need a pipeline. A simple Extension should fit the bill.
On an extensions.py in the same directory as settings.py:
from scrapy import signals
from scrapy.exceptions import NotConfigured
class MoveFileOnCloseExtension(object):
def __init__(self, feed_uri):
self.feed_uri = feed_uri
#classmethod
def from_crawler(cls, crawler):
# instantiate the extension object
feed_uri = crawler.settings.get('FEED_URI')
ext = cls(feed_uri)
crawler.signals.connect(ext.spider_closed, signal=signals.spider_closed)
# return the extension object
return ext
def spider_closed(self, spider):
# Move the file to the proper location
# os.rename(self.feed_uri, ... destination path...)
On your settings.py:
EXTENSIONS = {
'myproject.extensions.MoveFileOnCloseExtension': 500,
}
Related
I have a number of Scrapy spiders running and recently had a strange bug. I have a base class and a number of sub classes:
class MyBaseSpider(scrapy.Spider):
new_items = []
def spider_closed(self):
#Email any new items that weren't in the last run
class MySpiderImpl1(MyBaseSpider):
def parse(self):
#Implement site specific checks
self.new_items.append(new_found_item)
class MySpiderImpl2(MyBaseSpider):
def parse(self):
#Implement site specific checks
self.new_items.append(new_found_item)
This seems to have been running well, new items get emailed to me on a per-site basis. However I've recently had some emails from MySpiderImpl1 which contain items from Site 2.
I'm following the documentation to run from a script:
scraper_settings = get_project_settings()
runner = CrawlerRunner(scraper_settings)
configure_logging()
sites = get_spider_names()
for site in sites:
runner.crawl(site.spider_name)
d = runner.join()
d.addBoth(lambda _: reactor.stop())
reactor.run()
I suspect the solution here is to switch to a pipeline which collates the items for a site and emails them out when pipeline.close_spider is called but I was surprised to see the new_items variable leaking between spiders.
Is there any documentation on concurrent runs? Is it bad practice to keep variables on a base class? I do also track other pieces of information on the spiders in variables such as the run number - should this be tracked elsewhere?
In python all class variables are shared between all instances and subclasses. So your MyBaseSpider.new_items is the exact same list that is used by MySpiderImpl1.new_items and MySpiderImpl2.new_items.
As you suggested you could implement a pipeline, although this might require significantly refactoring your current code. It could look something like this.
pipelines.py
class MyPipeline:
def process_item(self, item, spider):
if spider.name == 'site1':
... email item
elif spider.name == 'site2':
... do something different
I am assuming all of your spiders have names... I think it's a requirement.
Another option that probably requires less effort might be to override the start_requests method in your base class to assign a unique list at start of the crawling process.
I've been experimenting with Scrapy for sometime now and recently have been trying to upload files (data and images) to an S3 bucket. If the directory is static, it is pretty straightforward and I didn't hit any roadblocks. But what I want to achieve is to dynamically create directories based on a certain field from the extract data and place the data & media in those directories. The template path, if you will, is below:
s3://<bucket-name>/crawl_data/<account_id>/<media_type>/<file_name>
For example if the account_id is 123, then the images should be placed in the following directory:
s3://<bucket-name>/crawl_data/123/images/file_name.jpeg
and the data file should be placed in the following directory:
s3://<bucket-name>/crawl_data/123/data/file_name.json
I have been able to achieve this for the media downloads (kind of a crude way to segregate media types, as of now), with the following custom File Pipeline:
class CustomFilepathPipeline(FilesPipeline):
def file_path(self, request, response=None, info=None, *, item=None):
adapter = ItemAdapter(item)
account_id = adapter["account_id"]
file_name = os.path.basename(urlparse(request.url).path)
if ".mp4" in file_name:
media_type = "video"
else:
media_type = "image"
file_path = f"crawl_data/{account_id}/{media_type}/{file_name}"
return file_path
The following settings have been configured at a spider level with custom_settings:
custom_settings = {
'FILES_STORE': 's3://<my_s3_bucket_name>/',
'FILES_RESULT_FIELD': 's3_media_url',
'DOWNLOAD_WARNSIZE': 0,
'AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID': <my_access_key>,
'AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY': <my_secret_key>,
}
So, the media part works flawlessly and I have been able to download the images and videos in their separate directories based on the account_id, in the S3 bucket. My questions is:
Is there a way to achieve the same results with the data files as well? Maybe another custom pipeline?
I have tried to experiment with the 1st example on the Item Exporters page but couldn't make any headway. One thing that I thought might help is to use boto3 to establish connection and then upload files but that might possibly require me to segregate files locally and upload those files together, by using a combination of Pipelines (to split data) and Signals (once spider is closed to upload the files to S3).
Any thoughts and/or guidance on this or a better approach would be greatly appreciated.
I have some tens of python modules, each has one common method (e.g: run(params)) but with different implementations. I also have an AWS Lambda which will need to call that method from within one of those modules. Choosing which module depending on the input of that lambda.
It seems that I can achieve that by using Layers in Lambda.
However, if I use one single layer for all those modules, then I could see problems with versioning that. If I need to update one module, I'll need to re-deploy that layer, which could bring unexpected changes to other modules.
If I use one layer for each module, then there will be too many layers to manage.
I thought of putting each module into one individual zip file, and put those zip files into an S3 location. My lambda will then dynamically reads the required zip files from S3 and execute.
Is that approach viable?
=====================
My current solution is to have something like this:
def read_python_script_from_zip(bucket: str, key: str, script_name: str) -> str:
s3 = boto3.resource('s3')
raw = s3.Object(bucket, key).get()['Body'].read()
zf = zipfile.ZipFile(io.BytesIO(raw), "r")
scripts = list(filter(lambda f: f.endswith(f"/{script_name}.py"), zf.namelist()))
if len(scripts) == 0:
raise ModuleNotFoundError(f"{script_name} not found.")
if len(scripts) > 1:
raise ModuleNotFoundError(f"{script_name} is ambiguous.")
source = zf.read(scripts[0])
mod = ModuleType(script_name, '')
exec(source, mod.__dict__)
return mod
read_python_script_from_zip(source_bucket, source_key, module_name).run(params)
Looks complicate to me though, would expect an easier way.
You could try packaging each module as a separate distribution package, which would let you version them separately. However, creating a Python distribution package is not as simple as you might hope, especially if you want to publish it to a private repository hosted on S3.
We are having one django rest framework (DRF) project which should have multiple databases (mongoDB).Each databases should be independed. We are able to connect to one database, but when we are going to another DB for writing connection is happening but data is storing in DB which is first connected.
We changed default DB and everything but no changes.
(Note : Solution should be apt for the usage of serializer. Because we need to use DynamicDocumentSerializer in DRF-mongoengine.
Thanks in advance.
While running connect() just assign an alias for each of your databases and then for each Document specify a db_alias parameter in meta that points to a specific database alias:
settings.py:
from mongoengine import connect
connect(
alias='user-db',
db='test',
username='user',
password='12345',
host='mongodb://admin:qwerty#localhost/production'
)
connect(
alias='book-db'
db='test',
username='user',
password='12345',
host='mongodb://admin:qwerty#localhost/production'
)
models.py:
from mongoengine import Document
class User(Document):
name = StringField()
meta = {'db_alias': 'user-db'}
class Book(Document):
name = StringField()
meta = {'db_alias': 'book-db'}
I guess, I finally get what you need.
What you could do is write a really simple middleware that maps your url schema to the database:
from mongoengine import *
class DBSwitchMiddleware:
"""
This middleware is supposed to switch the database depending on request URL.
"""
def __init__(self, get_response):
# list all the mongoengine Documents in your project
import models
self.documents = [item for in dir(models) if isinstance(item, Document)]
def __call__(self, request):
# depending on the URL, switch documents to appropriate database
if request.path.startswith('/main/project1'):
for document in self.documents:
document.cls._meta['db_alias'] = 'db1'
elif request.path.startswith('/main/project2'):
for document in self.documents:
document.cls._meta['db_alias'] = 'db2'
# delegate handling the rest of response to your views
response = get_response(request)
return response
Note that this solution might be prone to race conditions. We're modifying a Documents globally here, so if one request was started and then in the middle of its execution a second request is handled by the same python interpreter, it will overwrite document.cls._meta['db_alias'] setting and first request will start writing to the same database, which will break your database horribly.
Same python interpreter is used by 2 request handlers, if you're using multithreading. So with this solution you can't start your server with multiple threads, only with multiple processes.
To address the threading issues, you can use threading.local(). If you prefer context manager approach, there's also a contextvars module.
I'm trying to organize a large number of CloudWatch alarms for maintainability, and the web console grays out the name field on an edit. Is there another method (preferably something scriptable) for updating the name of CloudWatch alarms? I would prefer a solution that does not require any programming beyond simple executable scripts.
Here's a script we use to do this for the time being:
import sys
import boto
def rename_alarm(alarm_name, new_alarm_name):
conn = boto.connect_cloudwatch()
def get_alarm():
alarms = conn.describe_alarms(alarm_names=[alarm_name])
if not alarms:
raise Exception("Alarm '%s' not found" % alarm_name)
return alarms[0]
alarm = get_alarm()
# work around boto comparison serialization issue
# https://github.com/boto/boto/issues/1311
alarm.comparison = alarm._cmp_map.get(alarm.comparison)
alarm.name = new_alarm_name
conn.update_alarm(alarm)
# update actually creates a new alarm because the name has changed, so
# we have to manually delete the old one
get_alarm().delete()
if __name__ == '__main__':
alarm_name, new_alarm_name = sys.argv[1:3]
rename_alarm(alarm_name, new_alarm_name)
It assumes you're either on an ec2 instance with a role that allows this, or you've got a ~/.boto file with your credentials. It's easy enough to manually add yours.
Unfortunately it looks like this is not currently possible.
I looked around for the same solution but it seems neither console nor cloudwatch API provides that feature.
Note:
But we can copy the existing alram with the same parameter and can save on new name
.