Things which aren't magic – Flask and app.route | Hacker News Reader

Things which aren't magic – Flask and app.route

ains.co

Flask is incredible. since I've made the transition from PHP-based CMS's I've never looked back.

if someone is interested in learning more about building larger scale/production apps with flask, I have a series of tutorials at medium to get you started: https://medium.com/@level09

Disclaimer: I'm the creator of enferno (http://enferno.io), A flask-based system pre-configured with caching/user auth/basic template/ORM/CRUD/task queue/mail functionality.

Curious what made you go this route rather than say a more full featured framework (Django/Rails)? Just based on assumptions, was it the ability to specify each of your preferred components?

The short answer is, faster development, easier to maintain and extend, and even more efficiency which is exactly what I was looking for.

the long answer is, a combination of many things: - flask is simpler, has almost no learning curve

- Django's ORM is not great, and I preferred nosql where things can be done faster and no schema migration was needed

- Jinja2 seemed better and the template structure was simpler, and the static file serving seemed more straight forward in flask

- settings management, urls and routing (with decorators), blueprints and many other things ..

I really believe that Flask represents the best way to design any web framework.

For me because jinja2 is better than django's templates, sqlalchemy is also better than django orm. And you can use them as separate (sqlalchemy on desktop app), blueprints also (for me at least), everything is not tied to the sql-orm so you can use nosql to webscale.

What's throwing me off -- and I'm sure it's something trivial I'm not seeing -- is how we add the functions to the routes dictionary. When is the decorator's code actually executed? Is that done at import time? My assumption is that its code is executed when its counterpart is called, though clearly that mustn't be the case.

Given my understanding from the article, there's a hole: how does serving route "/" know to call that function if (given my assumptions) the @app.route("/") decoration is not executed until the function it decorates is called?

app.route("/") is just a function call which will be run by Python on module import, like any other function that you call in the top level of your module.

The return value of the function is a decorator, so then the @ syntax applies it to the succeeding function. In the process of applying the decorator, it adds the route to the dictionary. That's also on module import.

Plain decorators work how you expect but generators are different. The decorator generator is called at import time, which is when the association between the route and the function is stored.

Well, no. The decorator generator is called first, then the decorator is called, all at the time when the line "@app.route()" is first reached during import. You could just as easily write @foo.bar[baz]('abc').hello and it would still work - the code after the @ is just an expression that should return a callable.

How is the decorator mentioned in the article a decorator generator?

Edit:Sorry. I did not notice the term decorator generator in the article. Thanks for the explanation

Yes I had to think about it and test it (not done much Python recently). The decorating function is called as soon as the decorated function is declared.

These are the results of a simple test in the Python console.

  >>> def dec(f):
  ...   print "Decorator ran"
  ...   return f
  ... 
  >>> @dec
  ... def decorated(i):
  ...   print "Decorated function ran"
  ... 
  Decorator ran
  >>> decorated(5)
  Decorated function ran
  >>> decorated(5)
  Decorated function ran

The @ syntax is just syntactic sugar.

  @decorator
  def function():
      print("Hello World!")

is equivalent to:

  def function():
      print("Hello World!")
  function = decorator(function)

Exactly. In particular, the decorator can be an expression, so

  @decorator_factory(foo, bar)
  def function():
      print("Hello World!")

becomes

  def function():
      print("Hello World!")
  function = decorator_factory(foo, bar)(function)

or in this case, app.route(path)(function). So route() needs to return something that can be called with one argument. That's executed immediately at the time the function is defined.

Also the syntactic sugar lets you do stupid things like

  >>> @print
  ... def f():
  ...   pass
  ... 
  <function f at 0x101cfdde8>
  >>> repr(f)
  'None'

because print is a function that has a side effect and returns None. (If you're on Python 2, don't forget to `from __future__ import print_function`)

The term decorator generator is incredibly misleading, as it implies relation to Python generators. The term decorator factory (or just decorator with parameters) is preferrable.

Author here, and good point! I was struggling a bit with the terminology to use, didn't think of decorator factory, it definitely would have been a bit clearer.

Came here to say this exact same thing

Something a bit more on the "magic" side, that some might find relevant https://gist.github.com/Socialery/40141aa2c2d70bd065e8

I never knew about q - looks very useful

As a Python newbie that just recently started using things like Flask and Bottle: wow, that was easy.

Yeah I know, I worked with webapp2 on app engine and working with flask was just plain simple and comfortable.

I did something similar when playing around trying to make a wsgi http://jibreel.me/blog/2/

Am I right in understanding that decorators are a form of closures as the decorator function is returning the function declared inside it ?

Decorators typically use closures (including in this case), but they're really just syntax sugar for transforming one function into a different one with the same name. This code:

  @d
  def foo():
      ...

is equivalent to this code:

  def foo():
      ...
  foo = d(foo)

(You should think of a Python "def" statement as an action that creates a function and assigns it to a variable, like "foo" in this case. Since functions are first-class values, they can be sent into other functions and assigned again, which is why this works.)

But yeah, if you're implementing a decorator (a function from function to function, like "d" above), you can declare an inner function and immediately return it, and that inner function will act as a closure (it will have access to variables in the outer scope). You can take that approach in other situations as well, not just with decorators.

As a followup to the sibling comment, note that closures aren't the only way to achieve the same effect, for example:

    class MyDecorator(object):
      def __init__(self, func):
        self.func = func
      def __call__(self, one, two, three):
        # do stuff
        return self.func(three, two, one)

ie. you can just as easily use a class instance to store your state, instead of a closure. I routinely use both methods, depending on which is more useful at the time.

Only in a trivial syntactic sense. They're better understood (IMO) as combinators, though even that isn't absolutely accurate.

Of course ultimately a word can mean different things; did you have a more specific question about what a decorator or a closure does?

They don't have to be: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4912116/closure-vs-anonym...

Flask's route decorator gives a nice syntax, but it goes against some ideal best practices:

* Imports shouldn't have side-effects (like registering functions with flask).

* You shouldn't use globals (like the flask app).

* Objects (such as the flask app) should be immutable whenever possible.

None of these are hard-and-fast rules, and Python code has a tendency to give up purity in favor of syntax, so it's certainly justified for Flask to be designed this way, but it's still a bit unsettling, and can lead to bugs, especially in larger cases when your handlers are split up across many files. Some examples:

* You need to make sure that you import every file with a request handler, and those imports often end up unused (only imported for their side-effects), which confuses linters and other static analysis tools.

* It's also easy to accidentally import a new file through some other import chain, so someone rearranging imports later might accidentally disable part of your app by never importing it.

* It can break some "advanced" uses of modules/imports, such as the reload function.

* Test code and scripts that want access to your request handlers are forced to build a (partial) Flask app, even if they have no use for one.

At my job, I recently changed our Flask handlers to be registered with a different approach (but the same API) that avoids most of these issues. Rather than setting things up with side-effects, it makes the route details easy to introspect later. Here's what our implementation of @route() looks like now:

  def route(rule, **options):
      def route_decorator(func):
          # Attach the route rule to the request handler.
          func.func_dict.setdefault('_flask_routes', []).append((rule, options))
  
          # Add the request handler to this module's list of handlers.
          module = sys.modules[func.__module__]
          if not hasattr(module, '_FLASK_HANDLERS'):
              module. _FLASK_HANDLERS = {}
          module._FLASK_HANDLERS[func.__name__] = func
          return func
  
      return route_decorator

So if you have a module called user_routes.py, with 3 Flask request handlers, then user_routes._FLASK_HANDLERS is a list containing those three functions. If one of those handlers is user_routes.create_user, then you can access user_routes.create_user._flask_routes in order to see the names of all of the route strings (usually just one) registered for that request handler.

Then, in separate code, there's a list of all modules with request handlers, and we import and introspect all of them as part of a function that sets up and returns the Flask app. So outside code never has any way of accessing a partially-registered Flask app, imports of request handler modules are "pure", and request handlers can often be defined without depending on Flask at all.

>Imports shouldn't have side-effects (like registering functions with flask).

Imports don't have side-effects. Using Flask's route decorators has.

>You shouldn't use globals (like the flask app).

The Flask app is just as much a global as any other class instance in any OOP language. Whether you make it a module-level object or not is your choice.

>Objects (such as the flask app) should be immutable whenever possible.

They hardly are. This is a good rule which nobody follows, and I don't think you'd gain enough advantages through this.

>You need to make sure that you import every file with a request handler, and those imports often end up unused (only imported for their side-effects), which confuses linters and other static analysis tools.

The fact that your app has import side-effects is your fault, this pattern is not at all encouraged by Flask. You probably want to use blueprints.

You're right, I hadn't seen blueprints, and they do seem to address my concerns pretty nicely.

All of the examples that I've seen (including the Flask quickstart guide, the linked post, and everything I could find on http://flask.pocoo.org/community/poweredby/ ) work by assigning the Flask app to a module-level variable (i.e. a global), then using that global at import time for all @app.route usages, so my assumption has been that that's the encouraged style. It at least seems to be pretty common. But I guess none of those examples are very big (only a few split the request handlers across multiple files), so they didn't get to a point where blueprints would be especially useful.

(Also, to be clear, when I say "imports shouldn't have side-effects", what I mean is that top-level code (which runs at import time) should ideally have no side effects.)

Check out blueprints[1], they pretty much do what you just talked about.

[1]: http://flask.pocoo.org/docs/0.10/blueprints/

That. Things _that_ aren't magic.

On a more relevant note, thanks for sharing this. It's always nice to read an explanation from somebody patient enough to not skip over a bunch of steps in the middle and avoid losing newbs like me.

"That" and "which" are apparently interchangeable on the other side of the pond, and the author is from Imperial College London.

On a more relevant note, I agree, this is a great article. :) (I'd already known in theory how decorators work, but this was a very clear presentation, and I hadn't quite thought through the part about only needing a reference to the unmodified function, so it was useful to see that trick spelled out.)

Huh. And now I've learned about British that/which! Thank you.

> That. Things _that_ aren't magic.

"Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Clearly Flask is Caesar's ;-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com