Python’s import system is powerful, but also quite complicated. Until the release of Python 3.3, there was no comprehensive explanation of the expected import semantics, and even following the release of 3.3, the details of how sys.path is initialised are still somewhat challenging to figure out.
Even though 3.3 cleaned up a lot of things, it still has to deal with various backwards compatibility issues that can cause strange behaviour, and may need to be understood in order to figure out how some third party frameworks operate.
Furthermore, even without invoking any of the more exotic features of the import system, there are quite a few common missteps that come up regularly on mailing lists and Q&A sites like Stack Overflow.
This essay only officially covers Python versions back to Python 2.6. Much of it applies to earlier versions as well, but I won’t be qualifying any of the explanations with version details before 2.6.
As with all my essays on this site, suggestions for improvement or requests for clarification can be posted on BitBucket.
This particular trap applies to 2.x releases, as well as 3.x releases up to and including 3.2.
Prior to Python 3.3, filesystem directories, and directories within zipfiles, had to contain an __init__.py in order to be recognised as Python package directories. Even if there is no initialisation code to run when the package is imported, an empty __init__.py file is still needed for the interpreter to find any modules or subpackages in that directory.
This has changed in Python 3.3: now any directory on sys.path with a name that matches the package name being looked for will be recognised as contributing modules and subpackages to that package.
This is an all new trap added in Python 3.3 as a consequence of fixing the previous trap: if a subdirectory encountered on sys.path as part of a package import contains an __init__.py file, then the Python interpreter will create a single directory package containing only modules from that directory, rather than finding all appropriately named subdirectories as described in the previous section.
This happens even if there are other preceding subdirectories on sys.path that match the desired package name, but do not include an __init__.py file.
This complexity is primarily forced on us by backwards compatibility constraints - without it, some existing code would have broken when Python 3.3 made the presence of __init__.py files in packages optional.
However, it is also useful in that it makes it possible to explicitly declare that a package is closed to additional contributions. All of the standard library currently works that way, although some packages may open up their namespaces to third party contributions in future releases (specifically, it is almost certain the encodings package will be open to additions in Python 3.4).
This next trap exists in all current versions of Python, including 3.3, and can be summed up in the following general guideline: “Never add a package directory, or any directory inside a package, directly to the Python path”.
The reason this is problematic is that every module in that directory is now potentially accessible under two different names: as a top level module (since the directory is on sys.path) and as a submodule of the package (if the higher level directory containing the package itself is also on sys.path).
As an example, Django (up to and including version 1.3) is guilty of setting up exactly this situation for site-specific applications - the application ends up being accessible as both app and site.app in the module namespace, and these are actually two different copies of the module. This is a recipe for confusion if there is any meaningful mutable module level state, so this behaviour has been eliminated from the default project layout in version 1.4 (site-specific apps will always need to be fully qualified with the site name, as described in the release notes).
Unfortunately, this is still a really easy guideline to violate, as it happens automatically if you attempt to run a module inside a package from the command line by filename rather than using the -m switch.
Consider a simple package layout like the following (I typically use package layouts along these lines in my own projects - a lot of people hate nesting tests inside package directories like this, and prefer a parallel hierarchy, but I favour the ability to use explicit relative imports to keep module tests independent of the package name):
project/ setup.py example/ __init__.py foo.py tests/ __init__.py test_foo.py
What’s surprising about this layout is that all of the following ways to invoke test_foo.py probably won’t work due to broken imports (either failing to find example for absolute imports like import example.foo or from example import foo, complaining about relative imports in a non-package or beyond the top-level package for explicit relative imports like from .. import foo, or issuing even more obscure errors if some other submodule happens to shadow the name of a top-level module used by the test, such as an example.json module that handled serialisation or an example.tests.unittest test runner):
# These commands will most likely *FAIL* due to problems with the way # the import state gets initialised, even if the test code is correct # working directory: project/example/tests ./test_foo.py python test_foo.py python -m test_foo python -c "from test_foo import main; main()" # working directory: project/package tests/test_foo.py python tests/test_foo.py python -m tests.test_foo python -c "from tests.test_foo import main; main()" # working directory: project example/tests/test_foo.py python example/tests/test_foo.py # working directory: project/.. project/example/tests/test_foo.py python project/example/tests/test_foo.py python -m project.example.tests.test_foo python -c "from project.example.tests.test_foo import main; main()"
That’s right, that long list is of all the methods of invocation that are quite likely to break if you try them, and the error messages won’t make any sense if you’re not already intimately familiar not only with the way Python’s import system works, but also with how it gets initialised. (Note that if the project exclusively uses explicit relative imports for intra-package references, the last two commands shown may actually work for Python 3.3 and later versions. Any absolute imports that expect “example” to be a top level package will still break though).
For a long time, the only way to get sys.path right with this kind of setup was to either set it manually in test_foo.py itself (hardly something novice, or even many veteran, Python programmers are going to know how to do) or else to make sure to import the module instead of executing it directly:
# working directory: project python -c "from package.tests.test_foo import main; main()"
Since Python 2.6, however, the following also works properly:
# working directory: project python -m package.tests.test_foo
This last approach is actually how I prefer to use my shell when programming in Python - leave my working directory set to the project directory, and then use the -m switch to execute relevant submodules like tests or command line tools. If I need to work in a different directory for some reason, well, that’s why I also like to have multiple shell sessions open.
While I’m using an embedded test case as an example here, similar issues arise any time you execute a script directly from inside a package without using the -m switch from the parent directory in order to ensure that sys.path is initialised correctly (e.g. the pre-1.4 Django project layout gets into trouble by running manage.py from inside a package, which puts the package directory on sys.path and leads to this double import problem - the 1.4+ layout solves that by moving manage.py outside the package directory).
The fact that most methods of invoking Python code from the command line break when that code is inside a package, and the two that do work are highly sensitive to the current working directory is all thoroughly confusing for a beginner. I personally believe it is one of the key factors leading to the perception that Python packages are complicated and hard to get right.
This problem isn’t even limited to the command line - if test_foo.py is open in Idle and you attempt to run it by pressing F5, or if you try to run it by clicking on it in a graphical filebrowser, then it will fail in just the same way it would if run directly from the command line.
There’s a reason the general “no package directories on sys.path” guideline exists, and the fact that the interpreter itself doesn’t follow it when determining sys.path is the root cause of all sorts of grief.
However, even if there are improvements in this area in future versions of Python (see PEP 395), this trap will still exist in all current versions.
This is a variant of the above double import problem that doesn’t require any erroneous sys.path entries.
It’s specific to the situation where the main module is also imported as an ordinary module, effectively creating two instances of the same module under different names.
As with any double-import problem, if the state stored in __main__ is significant to the correct operation of the program, or if there is top-level code in the main module that has undesirable side effects if executed more than once, then this duplication can cause obscure and surprising errors.
This is just one more reason why main modules in more complex applications should be kept fairly minimal - it’s generally far more robust to move most of the functionality to a function or object in a separate module, and just import and load that from the main module. That way, inadvertently executing the main module twice becomes harmless. Keeping main modules small and simple also helps to avoid a few potential problems with object serialisation as well as with the multiprocessing package.
Another common trap, especially for beginners, is using a local module name that shadows the name of a standard library or third party package or module that the application relies on. One particularly surprising way to run afoul of this trap is by using such a name for a script, as this then combines with the previous “executing the main module twice” trap to cause trouble. For example, if experimenting to learn more about Python’s socket module, you may be inclined to call your experimental script socket.py. It turns out this is a really bad idea, as using such a name means the Python interpreter can no longer find the real socket module in the standard library, as the apparent socket module in the current directory gets in the way:
$ python -c 'from socket import socket; print("OK!")' OK! $ echo 'from socket import socket; print("OK!")' > socket.py $ python socket.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "socket.py", line 1, in <module> from socket import socket File "/home/ncoghlan/devel/socket.py", line 1, in <module> from socket import socket ImportError: cannot import name socket
Following on from the example in the previous section, suppose we decide to fix our poor choice of script name by renaming the file. In Python 2, we’ll find that still doesn’t work:
$ mv socket.py socket_play.py $ python socket_play.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "socket_play.py", line 1, in <module> from socket import socket File "/home/ncoghlan/devel/socket.py", line 1, in <module> # Wrapper module for _socket, providing some additional facilities ImportError: cannot import name socket
There’s clearly something strange going on here, as we’re seeing a traceback that claims to be caused by a comment line. In reality, what has happened is that the cached bytecode file from our previous failed import attempt is still present and causing trouble, but when Python tries to display the source line for the traceback, it finds the source line from the standard library module instead. Removing the stale bytecode file makes things work as expected:
$ rm socket.pyc $ python socket_play.py OK!
This particular trap has been largely eliminated in Python 3.2 and later. In those versions, the interpreter makes a distinction between standalone bytecode files (such as socket.pyc above) and cached bytecode files (stored in automatically created __pycache__ directories). The latter will be ignored by the interpreter if the corresponding source file is missing, so the above renaming of the source file works as intended:
$ echo 'from socket import socket; print("OK!")' > socket.py $ python3 socket.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "socket.py", line 1, in <module> from socket import socket File "/home/ncoghlan/devel/socket.py", line 1, in <module> from socket import socket ImportError: cannot import name socket $ mv socket.py socket_play.py $ python3 socket_play.py
Note, however, that mixing Python 2 and Python 3 can cause trouble if Python 2 has left a standalone bytecode file lying around:
$ python3 socket_play.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "socket_play.py", line 1, in <module> from socket import socket; print("OK!") ImportError: Bad magic number in /home/ncoghlan/devel/socket.pyc
If you’re not a core developer on a Python implementation, the problem of importing stale bytecode is most likely to arise when renaming Python source files. For Python implementation developers, it can also arise any time we’re working on the compiler components that are responsible for generating the bytecode in the first place - that’s the main reason the CPython Makefile includes a make pycremoval target.
The above are the common traps, but there are others, especially if you start getting into the business of extending or overriding the default import system.
I may add more details on each of these over time: