[GRASS-user] Announcing new command line interface of `grass` program in trunk
wenzeslaus at gmail.com
Thu Jun 4 20:09:04 PDT 2015
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Rainer M Krug <Rainer at krugs.de> wrote:
> > [1, 2] The code now allows to introduce such interface. The challenge
> > is where to store the information about active Location and Mapset.
> > Currently, .gisrc (or .grassrc or .grassgisrc) file stored in the
> > current working directory seems as the best option to me. Another
> > option is to use environment variables [3, 4] but I don't consider it
> > a nice solution.
> I agree - unless it is in a scrip with shebang #!grass71exec or
> similar. Then it would be easy to use environmental variables.
Let me clarify here, GRASS modules read Mapset from a "gisrc" file. The
path to this file is stored in `GISRC` environment variable. The standard
interface now creates this file (its content) based on what was provided in
the command line. In the subcommand interface, only the first command knows
the Mapset and it must pass it to commands called later. The way how to do
this easily is to create a file with a given name in the current directory
(e.g., .grassrc). When grass command is called with subcommand (other than
setmapset), it looks for that file, if it is there, GISRC is set to this
file, if it is not there, it fails.
The environment variables I was mentioning are different thing. They
wouldn't be (cannot) be used inside the GRASS session (so no usage for them
in shebang mode). If the grass program would respect them, you can get poor
man's subcommand-like interface without implementing it:
grass [--mapset-from-environment] --exec r.univar map=elevation
I don't think this is how the API should look like and the subcommand
interface seems more natural (or just modern?) and more extensible (but do
we need it?).
> What about a user specified name? This would make switching mapsets in a
> script much more symbolic, as one does not has to specify the path of
> the mapset and just an easy to remember name? This would make it possible
> setup a whole bunch of mapsets associated with names in a text file and
> then just load the .grassEXEC file?
Mapset is the data. Should the data be specified in a "config file" or some
general file and then passed to the program? I don't think so. I think one
should pass the Mapset as a parameter.
To your suggestion of symbolic names. It might be easier to switch but it
would complicate the API and implementation a lot. How the file would be
managed? I don't think it is worth the trouble. Also I don't want to
implement interfaces which don't have precedence. An existing example of
something like that could change my opinion about a nickname file but I'm
unsure how this would fit with the rest.
> >  https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/2579#Additionalideas
> >  https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/2579#comment:10
> >  https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/2679
> >  https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/2681
> >> ,----
> >> | grass71 --setmapset .../grassdata/test1/PERMANENT/
> >> | grass71 --exec r.external input=basins.tiff output=basins
> >> | grass71 --exec r.external input=elevation.tiff output=elevation
> >> | grass71 --unsetmapset
> >> `----
> > Rather than this, I prefer subcommand interface as known from git,
> > or apt-get:
> > ,----
> > | grass71 setmapset .../grassdata/test1/PERMANENT/
> > | grass71 run r.external input=basins.tiff output=basins
> > | grass71 run r.external input=elevation.tiff output=elevation
> > | grass71 unsetmapset
> > `----
> Looks much nicer - I agree.
> > Which subcommands and how to name them is of course a separate question.
> > I'm quite comfortable with `run` but not so much with `setmapset` and
> > `unsetmapset`.
> They were just descriptive names. And if you want to stick with the
> subcommand options, something like
> | grass71 set mapset .../grassdata/test1/PERMANENT/
> | grass71 run r.external input=basins.tiff output=basins
> | grass71 run r.external input=elevation.tiff output=elevation
> | grass71 unset mapset
The decision if to nest subcommands or not is one of the main disadvantages
of this kind of interface. I'm quite unsure about the syntax you proposed.
Perhaps something simpler like:
| grass71 start .../grassdata/test1/PERMANENT/
| grass71 run r.external input=basins.tiff output=basins
| grass71 run r.external input=elevation.tiff output=elevation
| grass71 stop
would be nicer and simpler.
> Then one could also use
> | grass71 set mapset ./input
> where input would be a file which contains something like
> | mapset = .../grassdata/test1/PERMANENT/
> This would make it possible to easily run the same script for different
I don't see any advantage in that. You should pass the the Mapset to your
script as a parameter instead of hardcoding path to file in the script and
then changing the file. If you script has a lot of parameters then some
kind of config file is appropriate but this should be solved by the script
In script (naive bash):
| grass71 start $1
| ./the_script.sh .../grassdata/test1/PERMANENT/
I think this is an appropriate syntax.
> Another advantage of the set ... syhtax would be the flexibility to set
> many more things without having to add additional syntax
I would replace set by start because you anyway need the stop counter part
(to delete the "gisrc" file) but you got a point that it has a precedence:
| git config user.name "John Smith"
However, I have no idea what we would be setting, so I'm staying with
start-stop pair for now. set-unset could be an addition.
> >> and finally introduce a mapper around this (similar to Rscript ore
> >> littler) so that one could say
> >> ,----
> >> | grass71exec setmapset .../grassdata/test1/PERMANENT/
> >> | grass71exec r.external input=basins.tiff output=basins
> >> | grass71exec r.external input=elevation.tiff output=elevation
> >> | grass71exec unsetmapset
> >> `----
> > I don't see much advantage in this comparing to grass71 --exec for the
> > usages other than shebang which requires special approach anyway (see
> > below).
> Exactly - the shebang would be the target here.
But with shebang we have just one command to do, so no `setmapset` is
possible (see below).
> >> and could use grass71exec as a shebang - that would be the ultimate
> >> convenience.
> > This would make sense. GRASS looks like an interpreter by requiring
> > to run inside, so it should behave as an interpreter.
> > Shebang may require to have a special wrapper to set some parameters
> > shebang allows just one short parameter and no parameter when
> > is used) but the challenge here is much bigger: Who will set the Mapset?
> The first command has to set the mapset, with something like
> set mapset ./input
> | set mapset .../grassdata/test1/PERMANENT/
Perhaps this is where we diverge. But maybe I'm wrong because I'm for a
strange compromise. I don't think GRASS should actual interpret the file
itself. It should be possible to use grass in shebang but then GRASS should
execute the file using whatever interpreter is appropriate (Bash, Python,
R, ...). Once in GRASS session, no special
g.mapset mapset=PERMANENT -c --q
The only issue is there we need to introduce inconsistency, so far all the
scripts executed in GRASS were *guaranteed to have* Mapset already set,
script executed in this way would be *required to set* the Mapset at the
> and I don't know if it would be feasible (and if it can be done with the
> same command), if in a shebang script, the cleaning and initialisation
> only needs to be done when "set mapset" is called.
> > As I recently discussed on grass-dev, GRASS session is runtime+data .
> > Shebang version could just set up runtime while the script would be
> > responsible for the data (setting Mapset).
> This is how I would see it.
> > The implementation/design challenge is then who will create and delete
> > the "gisrc" file which keeps info about the Mapset. GRASS would have
> > to know that it is not supposed to require Mapset to be set when
> > starting nor read the last used one from the user settings (I'm not
> > sure what are the options to achieve this except for special shebang
> > parameter/mode).
> I don't think a special shebang parameter / mode would be a problem from
> the user side, if the only difference is the cleaning up.
> > Another challenge is how to execute the script in GRASS session because
> > need another shebang to tell you how to actually execute the script. So
> > idea so far is to have:
> > #!grass71exec
> > #!python
> > where first line would by used by system to call grass program, then
> > would copy the file, delete the first line and actually execute this
> > GRASS would have to know that it is supposed to do that (special shebang
> > parameter/mode, two shebang lines, or special syntax for the second
> > shebang).
> Sorry - I don't follow you here. I have used GRASS only from R or bash
> terminal and I have never used python.
I had to try it to understand. First shebang (#!/usr/bin/grass71exec) would
be used by system to call GRASS. But GRASS has to execute the file somehow.
GRASS is using system for that. System knows what to use thanks to the
shebang, but shebang is set to GRASS now and we don't want that. So GRASS
has to change the shebang to something else (which could be stored in file
as another shebang, e.g. #!/usr/bin/python).
Another way would be to have several grass71s for shebang, one for each
language we want to support. grass71python would use Python associated with
GRASS. But we would have to explicitly support each interpreter.
> But I must say this sounds very interesting and I think the sub command
> would be an important next step. As soon as it is implemented, I will
> see that I adapt the rgrass7 interface so that I can see how it goes
> From that side.
If you want to try it, don't wait for subcommand interface. I cannot
implement it now. You can get a lot from the --exec interface too. The
difference is that you have to pass Mapset as a parameter every time, with
subcommand interface, you will have to be in one directory for things to
work (or alternatively set environment variables if implemented).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the grass-user