moved main() into __main__.py to keep __init__.py minimal

[seancmonahan]

Cf. https://docs.python.org/3/library/__main__.html

[dmtucker]

__name__ will never not equal __main__ in __main__.py.

[seancmonahan]

__name__ equals sample.__main__ once the project is installed and run via the executable 'sample' generated by setup.py.

Without the if __name__ == "__main__": check (but still calling main() at the end of __main__.py):

$ virtualenv foo
$ source foo/bin/activate
(foo) $ pip install ../path/to/sampleproject
(foo) $ sample #i.e. foo/bin/sample
Call your main application code here
Call your main application code here
(foo) $

[seancmonahan]

I suppose the same effect could be had by reverting __init__.py and setup.py, and making __main__.py be (like pip's __main__.py):

from . import main

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

My motivation was twofold though:

• Make the package runnable via python -m sample
• Keep __init__.py as clean as possible.

For example, pip's primary __init__.py is a single line definition of __version__, and setup.py uses pip._internal:main as its console_script entrypoint. (I do see that ultimately main() is defined inside pip/_internal/__init__.py ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

Regardless of where def main(): ends up, my first goal (to make the package runnable) requires the addition of a __main__.py.

[dmtucker]

Ah, you're right about __name__ during import...

IMO, the double execution is evidence of abuse. __main__.py is meant to control the behavior of python -m, yet here it is tangled up in the execution of the entry point.
Instead of __main__.py and the entry point leading the user to the same call (e.g. sample.cli.main()), the latter leads to the former which has to have a special hack added to make things work.

The docs even describe __main__.py as the equivalent of if __name__ == '__main__' for packages (implying packages should not need it):

For a package, the same effect can be achieved by including a __main__.py module, the contents of which will be executed when the module is run with -m.

[seancmonahan]

Oops, you're correct about the double-execution behavior. Seems that I was accidentally running from a virtualenv with an outdated install of sample with the console_script entrypoint pointing to __main__ still! Should I close this pull request?

Would a single patch for adding a __main__.py consisting solely of

from . import main

main()

be accepted/useful? It would allow the package to be run via python -m sample and avoid the nonsense I would've introduced by moving def main(): into __main__.py.

Also, would adding a sample/cli.py module be in the scope of this project? It seems like a useful way to make minimize __init__.py to either an empty file or a single from .cli import main. (This does trigger a flake8 error for an unused import.)

[dmtucker]

I think that is a reasonable __main__.py, and I would say a cli.py module is in-scope for the project since someone previously defined an entry_point.

Not sure how we want to manage imports in __init__.py... I think generally people use that file to define the package API (which often implies unused imports), but it's not explicitly required since modules within the package can be imported independently. I'd probably just leave it empty to avoid a # noqa.

[pfmoore]

I still think this is not something that has an "obvious" best practice approach (as evidenced by the discussion going on here) and users would be better served with documentation that discussed the various approaches and the pros and cons, rather than having one particular approach added to this sample project. Let's also not forget that most projects don't even need to be runnable.

A new section in https://packaging.python.org/guides/ would likely be a better way of dealing with this, IMO.

[DiddiLeija]

Hi @seancmonahan. Are you still interested on this PR? If you are, I recommend you to edit the first post of the PR, and add the following expression: Closes #141. That way, that issue (#141, which is directly related) will be closed if this gets merged. Also, can you rebase the PR?

[DiddiLeija]

Hi everyone! Are we still interested in this PR?

[pfmoore]

My objection to doing this, which I noted above, still stands.