The class subprocess.CompletedProcess is currently lacking a __bool__() method.

It might be a practical feature to have the possibility to evaluate a CompletedProcess instance in an if/else block without the necessity to handle the exception raised by CompletedProcess.check_returncode().

Hence, I suggest adding the method

def __bool__(self):
    return self.returncode == 0

to the class.

Can you please give examples of use cases? (code)

A useless use case is attached.
Basically it boils down to having the ability to evaluate the CompletedProcess directly by if/else rather than comparing its returncode attribute to zero each time or handling the exception raised by check_returncode().
I use this quite frequently in programs which run system commands.
Before the new subprocess.run() method and subprocess.CompletedProcess were introduced with python 3.5 I already wrote my own library for that, wich now nearly became obsoleted by the new subprocess library of python 3.5 with the expection that it does not have this feature.
See the class ProcessResult here: https://github.com/HOMEINFO/homeinfo-lib/blob/master/homeinfo/lib/system.py

The idea sounds good to me.

I took the liberty to create a patch for Python v3.5.1.

It's a new feature, it should only go to Python 3.6.

Please excuse my ambiguous phrasing.
What I meant was I created the patch _from_ the Python 3.5.1 module _for_ Python 3.6.

This is not enough. New feature should be documented (in new method docstring, in subprocess documentation and in What's New document) and tested.

And please sign a Contributor Licensing Agreement.

http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/
http://www.python.org/psf/contrib/

Thank you for the hint.
I never before contributed code to the python foundation and thus am not familiar with the process.
I will look into it when I find the time.

I am taking over to do the rest part required for this ticket.

I'm not sure that it is worth to implement the __bool__() method. This doesn't add much in comparison with checking the returncode attribute.

The change can break existing code that uses boolean testing instead of checking for None.

> The change can break existing code that uses boolean testing 
> instead of checking for None.

For this reason, I think Guido would oppose this proposal.  In the past he has objected to iterators having a True boolean value to indicate that there were more values available for iteration.  I think similar reasoning applies here.

See also issue26748. Classes usually have True boolean value, but empty enum classes were False-y by accident. This was considered a bug.

For all reasons alread given in the previous comment and my comment below, I reject the proposed change.


Serhiy> See also issue26748. Classes usually have True boolean value, but empty enum classes were False-y by accident. This was considered a bug.

Another example: issue #13936, "RFE: change bool(datetime.time(0, 0, 0)) to evaluate as True". datetime.time was changed in Python 3.5 to always be true, especially for the time 00:00:00. It's the opposite of the proposed change for CompletedProcess.


The problem is also that different users can expect a different answer from bool(CompletedProcess): non-zero return code, non-empty stdout, empty stderr, etc.

CompleteProcess is a complex object with many attributes, it's not as simple as a tuple or a string, where the truthness is obvious.


> Richard Neumann: "A useless use case is attached."

"if subprocess.run(...):"

Sorry, I'm not convinced that the need of breaking the backward compatibility for this "useless use case". It's trivial to split it in two lines:

"cmd = subprocess.run(...); if cmd.returncode: (...)"

By the way, it became common that I write such code, and in this case, I need the returncode value in the if block:

"cmd = subprocess.run(...); if cmd.returncode: sys.exit(cmd.returncode)".

So I need the CompletedProcess object anyway.