chris at mccormick.cx
Tue Dec 15 05:31:40 CET 2009
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:50:44PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> This looks quite useful. Is the process management pretty robust? I
> have a big python script for running help patches and unit tests. It
> mostly works quite well, but occasionally there is some weird bug in a
> patch that causes the pd process to hang without notification.
I guess it depends how the pd process is "hanging". If it's a proper crash then
Pd.py will fire a callback method which you can override. I have never had the
pd process just hang ( [bang( -> [until]? ) before so I don't know how it would
react. Maybe I should test that.
> Here's my script:
> I suppose this script should use PyPd.
Well, I don't know. If it works well now then why change it? :)
I don't actually use the subprocess module, rather a Popen, which is probably a
mistake. That's probably because I started it before the subprocess module was
available. I like how you are auto-generating the netreceive patch. I am just
including it in the patches/ subdirectory. I guess my way gives the author
flexibility to use [python-interface] in their own patch as a singleton for
communicating with Python.
Basically because you know your script better I think it would be a good idea
to stick with it until there is a compelling reason to change and learn
We are using it primarily for managing a long-running Pd process rather than a
one-shot unit test. Maybe your script is more sensible for tests which just
fire and then exit immediately.
More information about the Pd-list