Parse a .py file, read the AST, modify it, then wr

Question

I want to programmatically edit python source code. Basically I want to read a .py file, generate the AST, and then write back the modified python source code (i.e. another .py file).

There are ways to parse/compile python source code using standard python modules, such as ast or compiler. However, I don't think any of them support ways to modify the source code (e.g. delete this function declaration) and then write back the modifying python source code.

UPDATE: The reason I want to do this is I'd like to write a Mutation testing library for python, mostly by deleting statements / expressions, rerunning tests and seeing what breaks.

Answer 1

A Program Transformation System is a tool that parses source text, builds ASTs, allows you to modify them using source-to-source transformations ("if you see this pattern, replace it by that pattern"). Such tools are ideal for doing mutation of existing source codes, which are just "if you see this pattern, replace by a pattern variant".

Of course, you need a program transformation engine that can parse the language of interest to you, and still do the pattern-directed transformations. Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is a system that can do that, and handles Python, and a variety of other languages.

See this SO answer for an example of a DMS-parsed AST for Python capturing comments accurately. DMS can make changes to the AST, and regenerate valid text, including the comments. You can ask it to prettyprint the AST, using its own formatting conventions (you can changes these), or do "fidelity printing", which uses the original line and column information to maximally preserve the original layout (some change in layout where new code is inserted is unavoidable).

To implement a "mutation" rule for Python with DMS, you could write the following:

rule mutate_addition(s:sum, p:product):sum->sum =
  " \s + \p " -> " \s - \p"
 if mutate_this_place(s);

This rule replace "+" with "-" in a syntactically correct way; it operates on the AST and thus won't touch strings or comments that happen to look right. The extra condition on "mutate_this_place" is to let you control how often this occurs; you don't want to mutate every place in the program.

You'd obviously want a bunch more rules like this that detect various code structures, and replace them by the mutated versions. DMS is happy to apply a set of rules. The mutated AST is then prettyprinted.

Answer 2

You might not need to re-generate source code. That's a bit dangerous for me to say, of course, since you have not actually explained why you think you need to generate a .py file full of code; but:

• If you want to generate a .py file that people will actually use, maybe so that they can fill out a form and get a useful .py file to insert into their project, then you don't want to change it into an AST and back because you'll lose all formatting (think of the blank lines that make Python so readable by grouping related sets of lines together) (ast nodes have lineno and col_offset attributes) comments. Instead, you'll probably want to use a templating engine (the Django template language, for example, is designed to make templating even text files easy) to customize the .py file, or else use Rick Copeland's MetaPython extension.

• If you are trying to make a change during compilation of a module, note that you don't have to go all the way back to text; you can just compile the AST directly instead of turning it back into a .py file.

• But in almost any and every case, you are probably trying to do something dynamic that a language like Python actually makes very easy, without writing new .py files! If you expand your question to let us know what you actually want to accomplish, new .py files will probably not be involved in the answer at all; I have seen hundreds of Python projects doing hundreds of real-world things, and not a single one of them needed to ever writer a .py file. So, I must admit, I'm a bit of a skeptic that you've found the first good use-case. :-)

Update: now that you've explained what you're trying to do, I'd be tempted to just operate on the AST anyway. You will want to mutate by removing, not lines of a file (which could result in half-statements that simply die with a SyntaxError), but whole statements — and what better place to do that than in the AST?

Answer 3

The builtin ast module doesn't seem to have a method to convert back to source. However, the codegen module here provides a pretty printer for the ast that would enable you do do so. eg.

import ast
import codegen

expr="""
def foo():
   print("hello world")
"""
p=ast.parse(expr)

p.body[0].body = [ ast.parse("return 42").body[0] ] # Replace function body with "return 42"

print(codegen.to_source(p))

This will print:

def foo():
    return 42

Note that you may lose the exact formatting and comments, as these are not preserved.

However, you may not need to. If all you require is to execute the replaced AST, you can do so simply by calling compile() on the ast, and execing the resulting code object.

Answer 4

I've created recently quite stable (core is really well tested) and extensible piece of code which generates code from ast tree: https://github.com/paluh/code-formatter .

I'm using my project as a base for a small vim plugin (which I'm using every day), so my goal is to generate really nice and readable python code.

P.S. I've tried to extend codegen but it's architecture is based on ast.NodeVisitor interface, so formatters (visitor_ methods) are just functions. I've found this structure quite limiting and hard to optimize (in case of long and nested expressions it's easier to keep objects tree and cache some partial results - in other way you can hit exponential complexity if you want to search for best layout). BUT codegen as every piece of mitsuhiko's work (which I've read) is very well written and concise.