classification
Title: argparse claims '*' positional argument is required in error output
Type: behavior Stage:
Components: Library (Lib) Versions: Python 3.5
process
Status: open Resolution:
Dependencies: Superseder:
Assigned To: Nosy List: benhoyt, charlie.proctor, paul.j3, rrt, svenevs
Priority: normal Keywords: patch

Created on 2016-11-04 15:19 by rrt, last changed 2019-05-27 11:14 by svenevs.

Files
File name Uploaded Description Edit
optional_arguments.patch charlie.proctor, 2016-11-04 19:22 Check that action.nargs not in [OPTIONAL, ZERO_OR_MORE] review
Messages (11)
msg280052 - (view) Author: Reuben Thomas (rrt) Date: 2016-11-04 15:19
In Python 3.5.2, with a positional argument with nargs='*', running the program with no arguments gives an error like this:

usage: caffeinate [-h] [-V] COMMAND [ARGUMENT [ARGUMENT ...]]
caffeinate: error: the following arguments are required: COMMAND, ARGUMENT

Here it is clear from the (correct, though redundant) syntax that "ARGUMENT" is optional, but the error message claims, incorrectly, that it is required.

The add_argument calls used were:

parser.add_argument('COMMAND', help='command to run')
parser.add_argument('ARGUMENT', nargs='*', help='arguments to COMMAND')
parser.add_argument('-V', '--version', action='version', version=PROGRAM_NAME + ' ' + VERSION)
msg280072 - (view) Author: Charlie Proctor (charlie.proctor) * Date: 2016-11-04 19:22
I agree that the message is slightly misleading.

Uploading one possible solution. I'm sure someone more familiar with the library might have a better approach...
msg280074 - (view) Author: Reuben Thomas (rrt) Date: 2016-11-04 19:34
Thanks very much for this. It would be great if the redundancy I referred to in the usage message could also be removed, so that instead of "[ARGUMENT [ARGUMENT ...]]" it just said "[ARGUMENT ...]".

(Similarly, for a '+' argument, it could say just

ARGUMENT ...

)
msg280161 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2016-11-06 18:15
The current error message is the result of http://bugs.python.org/issue10424 and http://bugs.python.org/issue12776

Before the test was just:

   if positionals:
       self.error(_('too few arguments'))

The 2nd patch reworked the test to include the revised handling of defaults.

So the current error message just lists all the positionals which haven't been consumed.  ARGUMENT wasn't consumed because COMMAND wasn't consumed.     And technically that would be true even if ARGUMENT required arguments. Well, to be pickier, it as a 're' pattern like 'AA*' that failed. 

The proposed patch looks like it would work, but I haven't tested or looked at the unittests.  But I wonder if such a patch is really needed. Are users really misled by the the current message?

===============

As for the usage, the current version allows you to give a tuple METAVAR, producing lines like:

    In [359]: a.metavar=('A','B')
    In [360]: parser.print_usage()
    usage: ipython3 [-h] [A [B ...]]
    In [361]: a.nargs='+'
    In [362]: parser.print_usage()
    usage: ipython3 [-h] A [B ...]

This display pattern is generated in HelpFormater._format_args, with these lines

        elif action.nargs == ZERO_OR_MORE:
            result = '[%s [%s ...]]' % get_metavar(2)
        elif action.nargs == ONE_OR_MORE:
            result = '%s [%s ...]' % get_metavar(2)
        elif action.nargs == REMAINDER:
            result = '...'

You could subclass HelpFormatter, and replace this method with one that performs as you want, (I just tried this)

    result = '[%s ...]' % get_metavar(1)

I wouldn't recommend this as default change, but if there was a enough demand it could added as another HelpFormatter subclass.

METAVAR lets me approximate your shorter version:

    In [4]: p.print_usage()
    usage: ipython3 [-h] [pos [pos ...]]
    In [5]: a.metavar=('pos','')
    In [6]: p.print_usage()
    usage: ipython3 [-h] [pos [...]]
    In [7]: a.nargs='+'
    In [8]: p.print_usage()
    usage: ipython3 [-h] pos [...]

It still has the [], but the name is gone.
msg280169 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2016-11-06 20:35
Try `nargs='?'` or try providing a `default` along with the '*'.

Including your ARGUMENT action in the error message is intentional.

The test for this error message is:

        required_actions = []
        for action in self._actions:
            if action not in seen_actions:
                if action.required:

Originally the code just checked if `positionals` was empty.  That was the list of positional Actions.  Actions were popped as they were parsed.  Now it maintains a set `seen_actions`, and checks the `required` attribute.  This test applies to both positionals and optionals.

For optionals, `required` is set by the programmer.  But for positionals it is set with:

    def _get_positional_kwargs
         ...
        # mark positional arguments as required if at least one is
        # always required
        if kwargs.get('nargs') not in [OPTIONAL, ZERO_OR_MORE]:
            kwargs['required'] = True
        if kwargs.get('nargs') == ZERO_OR_MORE and 'default' not in kwargs:
            kwargs['required'] = True

So for '?' argument, required is False.  But for '*', it must also have a 'default' parameter (not just the default None).

So the proposed patch is overriding the 'required' value that was set during 'add_argument'.  And issuing this error message is the main purpose of the 'required' attribute.

I would not implement this patch.  

But it would be a good idea to check if this method of setting the required attribute has been discussed in other bug/issues.  (There is an open issue concerning how the 'required' is set/or not for the subparsers positional.)

Off hand I don't see anything about this in the documentation.  Maybe that's what needs to be patched.  (It's easier and safer to change the documentation than the working code.  Backward compatibility is a major concern when changing the code.)
msg280171 - (view) Author: Reuben Thomas (rrt) Date: 2016-11-06 20:55
> Try `nargs='?'` or try providing a `default` along with the '*'.

Why would I do that? I want 0 or more arguments, and there's no default value.

> Including your ARGUMENT action in the error message is intentional.

It will likely confuse the user. The syntax message says that it's optional, the error suggests (wrongly) that it is required.

Patching the Python documentation will not help in this case, because the user of my program will not be reading the Python documentation to understand how it works, only the program's own documentation.

Note that I did not suggest that the behavior be changed, only the message that is output.

The analysis of why the message is output is useful, but it does not demonstrate that the error message is correct; the error message, as I've already demonstrated, is undeniably wrong. In no sense is "ARGUMENT" missing, because 0 occurrences are entirely legal. Therefore although in terms of the API the argument is "required", it makes no sense to tell the user this (the user will assume that "required" has its colloquial sense, not a technical sense).

I entirely sympathise with the argument that the behavior of argparse should not change; I see nothing wrong with the behavior, in any case.

The problems are purely cosmetic:

1. The syntax message says, redundantly and confusingly, "[ARGUMENT [ARGUMENT ...]]" where it should say just  "[ARGUMENT ...]".

2. The error message says that ARGUMENT is "required", whereas, from the user's point of view, it clearly is not.

These are serious annoyances from the developer's point of view (in this case, from my point of view), because they mean that in order to release a production-quality tool, I have to hack around argparse's shortcomings.

So in fact, you're quite right that the documentation should be fixed; only in this case it is the documentation generated by argparse, not the documentation of argparse (which, again, is fine as far as I can see).
msg280180 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2016-11-07 01:00
Simply including a `default` parameter, even with the default default None, changes the error message

     In [395]: parser=argparse.ArgumentParser()
     In [396]: parser.add_argument('cmd');
     In [397]: a=parser.add_argument('args',nargs='*',default=None)
     In [398]: a.required
     Out[398]: False
     In [399]: parser.parse_args([])

     usage: ipython3 [-h] cmd [args [args ...]]
     ipython3: error: the following arguments are required: cmd

You shouldn't see any other changes in behavior (except maybe if the positional is in a mutually_exclusive_group).  The code that sets 'required' for positionals only looks for the presence of the parameter in kwargs, not its value: `'default' not in kwargs`.

An alternative is to change the value of 'required' after creation:
  
     a.required = False

Anyways I remain convinced that changing the 'required' attribute is the correct way to change the error message, not adding more tests to the message generator.
msg280181 - (view) Author: paul j3 (paul.j3) * (Python triager) Date: 2016-11-07 01:19
My suggestion to use `metavar=('A','')` to streamline the usage creates problems with the help code

http://bugs.python.org/issue14074

The tuple metavar does not work right for positionals.  That's a old issue that should have been fixed long ago.

So streamlining the usage has to be done with a custom HelpFormatter subclass.
msg280230 - (view) Author: Reuben Thomas (rrt) Date: 2016-11-07 19:59
Thanks, that's a simple, robust workaround.

I'll duck out now and leave the Python experts to sort out the underlying problem, if they can; I think it's still well worth sorting out, though documenting the problem and workaround would be much better than nothing.
msg288644 - (view) Author: Ben Hoyt (benhoyt) * Date: 2017-02-27 14:39
I definitely agree with Reuben here -- I just ran into this issue while creating a "production quality" tool, and the help message produced by argparse with nargs='*' confused me too. It's pretty clear that this is a simple bug in argparse's production of that usage message: it says ARGUMENT is required, but it isn't.

However, the workaround of specifying an (unused) default is a reasonable workaround in the meantime -- thanks Paul.
msg343614 - (view) Author: Stephen McDowell (svenevs) Date: 2019-05-27 11:14
> For optionals, `required` is set by the programmer.  But for positionals it is set with: ...
> So for '?' argument, required is False.  But for '*', it must also have a 'default' parameter (not just the default None).
> So the proposed patch is overriding the 'required' value that was set during 'add_argument'.  And issuing this error message is the main purpose of the 'required' attribute.

nargs='*' being marked as `required` is incorrect though, isn't it?

I was also very confused by this behavior, the only reason I found this bug was to search before opening new, and had a patch prepared that is nearly identical to the one here.

1. It's really helpful to know about explicitly setting `default=None|[]` depending on use case.  Would a docs PR briefly explaining at the bottom of the nargs [a] docs explaining how to change the error message via `default` be welcome?  This is a slightly challenging problem to search for.

2. My understanding is the ultimate rejection of the patch is because it's bypassing the `required` attribute.  So to fix this adequately, changing ? and * to not show up as required (when no `default` provided) should be done?


[a] https://docs.python.org/3/library/argparse.html#nargs
History
Date User Action Args
2019-05-27 11:14:14svenevssetnosy: + svenevs
messages: + msg343614
2017-02-27 14:39:47benhoytsetmessages: + msg288644
2017-02-27 14:26:15benhoytsetnosy: + benhoyt
2016-11-07 19:59:42rrtsetmessages: + msg280230
2016-11-07 01:19:32paul.j3setmessages: + msg280181
2016-11-07 01:00:15paul.j3setmessages: + msg280180
2016-11-06 20:55:46rrtsetmessages: + msg280171
2016-11-06 20:35:18paul.j3setmessages: + msg280169
2016-11-06 18:15:13paul.j3setnosy: + paul.j3
messages: + msg280161
2016-11-04 19:34:18rrtsetmessages: + msg280074
2016-11-04 19:22:12charlie.proctorsetfiles: + optional_arguments.patch

nosy: + charlie.proctor
messages: + msg280072

keywords: + patch
2016-11-04 15:19:23rrtcreate