In October of last year, I published a new library - typed-process. It builds on top of the veritable process package, and provides an alternative API (which I'll explain in a bit). It's not the first time I've written such a wrapper library; I first did so when creating Data.Conduit.Process, which is just a thin wraper around Data.Streaming.Process.

With this proliferation of APIs, why did I go for another one? With Data.(Conduit/Streaming).Process, I tried to stay as close as possible to the underlying process API. And the underlying process API is rigid for (at least) two reasons:

It's one of the most used APIs in the Haskell ecosystem, so breaking changes carry a very high cost

Since process is a dependency of GHC itself (a boot library), we're limited in adding dependencies

After I got sufficiently fed up with limitations in the existing APIs, I decided to take a crack at doing it all from scratch. I made a small announcement on Twitter, and have been using this library regularly since its release. In addition, a few people have raised questions on the process issue tracker whose simplest answer is IMO "use typed-process." Therefore, I think now's a good time to discuss the library more publicly and get some feedback as to what to do with it.

Overview of typed-process

There is both a typed-process tutorial and Haddock documentation available. If you want details, you should read those. This section is intended to give a little taste of typed-process to set the stage for the rest of the post.

Everything starts with the ProcessConfig datatype, which specified all the rules for how we're going to run an external process. This includes all of the common settings from the CreateProcess type in the process package, like changing the working directory or environment variables. Importantly (and the source of the "typed" in the library name), ProcessConfig takes three type parameters, representing the type of the three standard streams (input, output, and error). For example, ProcessConfig Handle Handle Handle indicates that all three streams will have Handle s, whereas ProcessConfig () (STM ByteString) () indicates that input and error will be unit, but output can be access as an STM action which returns a ByteString . (Much more on this later.)

There are multiple helper functions - like withProcess or readProcess - to take a ProcessConfig and turn it into a live, running process. These running processes are represented by the Process type, which like ProcessConfig takes three type parameters. There are underscore variants of these launch functions (like withProcess_ and readProcess_ ) to automatically check the exit code of a process and, if unsuccessful, throw a runtime exception.

You can access the exit code of a process with waitExitCode and getExitCode , which are blocking and non-blocking, respectively. These functions also come in STM variants to more easily work with processes from atomic sections of code.

Alright, enough overview, let's start talking about motivation.

Downsides of process

The typed-process tutorial identifies five limitations in the process library that I wanted to overcome. (There's also a sixth issue I'm aware of, a race condition, which I've added as a bonus section.) Let's dive into these more deeply, and see how typed-process addresses them.

Type variables

I've made a big deal about type variables so far. I believe this is the biggest driving force behind the more usable API in typed-process. Let's consider some idiomatic process-based code.

#!/ usr / bin / env stack import Control . Exception import System . Process import System . IO import System . Exit main :: IO () main = do ( Just inh , Just outh , Nothing , ph ) <- createProcess ( proc "cat" [ "-" , "/usr/share/dict/words" ] ) { std_in = CreatePipe , std_out = CreatePipe } hPutStrLn inh "This is the list of all words:" hClose inh out <- hGetContents outh evaluate $ length out mapM_ putStrLn $ take 100 $ lines out ec <- waitForProcess ph if ( ec == ExitSuccess ) then return () else error $ "cat process failed: " ++ show ec

The fact that std_in and std_out specify the creation of a Handle is not reflected in the types at all. If we left those changes out, our program would still compile, but our pattern match of (Just inh, Just outh would fail. By moving this information into the type system, we can catch bugs at compile time. Here's the equivalent code as above:

#!/ usr / bin / env stack import Control . Exception import System . Process . Typed import System . IO main :: IO () main = do let procConf = setStdin createPipe $ setStdout createPipe $ proc "cat" [ "-" , "/usr/share/dict/words" ] withProcess_ procConf $ \ p -> do hPutStrLn ( getStdin p ) "This is the list of all words:" hClose $ getStdin p out <- hGetContents $ getStdout p evaluate $ length out mapM_ putStrLn $ take 100 $ lines out

If you leave off the setStdin or setStdout calls, the program will not compile. But this is only the beginning. Instead of being limited to either generating a Handle or not, we now have huge amounts of flexibility in how we configure our streams. For example, here's an alternative approach to providing standard input to the process:

#!/ usr / bin / env stack import Control . Exception import System . Process . Typed import System . IO main :: IO () main = do let procConf = setStdin ( byteStringInput "This is the list of all words:

" ) $ setStdout createPipe $ proc "cat" [ "-" , "/usr/share/dict/words" ] withProcess_ procConf $ \ p -> do out <- hGetContents $ getStdout p evaluate $ length out mapM_ putStrLn $ take 100 $ lines out

There are functions in the process package that allow specifying standard input this easily, but they are not as composable as this approach (as we'll discuss below).

There's much more to be said about these type parameters, but hopefully this taste, plus the further examples in this post, will demonstrate their usefulness.

Proper concurrency

Functions like readProcessWithExitCode use some pretty hairy (IMO) lazy I/O tricks internally to read the output and error streams from a process. For the most part, you can simply use these functions without worrying about the crazy innards. However, consider if you want to do something off the beaten track, like capture the error stream while allowing the output stream to go to the parent process's stdout. There's no built-in function in process to handle that, so you'll be stuck implementing that behavior. And this functionality is far from trivial to get right.

By contrast, typed-process does not use any lazy I/O. And while it provides a readProcess function, there's nothing magical about it; it's built on top of the byteStringOutput stream config, which uses proper threading under the surface and provides its output via STM for even nicer concurrent coding.

#!/ usr / bin / env stack import Control . Concurrent . STM ( atomically ) import System . Process . Typed import qualified Data . ByteString . Lazy . Char8 as L8 main :: IO () main = do let procConf = setStdin closed $ setStderr byteStringOutput $ proc "stack" [ "path" , "--verbose" ] err <- withProcess_ procConf $ atomically . getStderr putStrLn "





Captured the following stderr:



" L8 . putStrLn err

STM

I won't dwell much on this one, since the benefits are less commonly useful. Since many functions in typed-process provide both IO and STM alternatives, it can significantly simplify some concurrent algorithms by letting you keep more logic within an atomic block. This is similar to (and inspired by) the design choices in the async library, which is my favorite library of all time.

Binary I/O

All input and output in typed-process works on binary data as ByteString s, instead of textual String data. This is:

More semantically correct

More efficient

Avoids annoying platform-specific bugs

More composable

A major goal of this library has been to be as composable as possible. I've been frustrated by two issues in the process package:

Many common changes to the API necessitate a breaking API change (e.g., the addition of the child_group setting or NoStream constructor) There is a big split between helper functions that work on CreateProcess values (like readCreateProcess ) and those that work on raw command/argument pairs (like readProcess ). The situation has improved in recent releases, but in older process releases, the lack of CreateProcess variants of many functions made it very difficult to both modify the environment/working directory for a process and capture its output or error.

For (1), I've gone the route of smart constructors throughout the API. You cannot access the ProcessConfig data constructor, but instead must use proc , shell , or OverloadedStrings . Instead of record accessors, there are setter and getter functions. And instead of a hard-coded list of stream types via a set of data constructors, you can create arbitrary StreamSpec s via the mkStreamSpec function. I hope this turns out to be an API that is resilient to breaking changes.

For (2), the solution is easy: all launch functions in typed-process work exclusively on ProcessConfig . Problem solved. We now have a very clear breakdown in the API: first you configure everything you want about your process, and then you choose whichever launch function makes the most sense to you.

Bonus: Race condition

There's a long standing race condition in process - which will hopefully be resolved soon - that introduces a race condition on waiting for child processes. In typed-process, we've avoided this entirely with a different approach to child process exit codes. Namely: we fork a separate thread to wait for the process and fill an STM TMVar , which both ensures no race condition and makes it possible to observe the process exiting from within an atomic block.

As a side benefit, this also avoids the possibility of accidentally creating zombie processes by not getting the process's exit code when it finishes. Similarly, by encouraging the bracket pattern (via withProcess ) when interacting with a process, killing off child processes in the case of exceptions happens far more reliably.

Limitations

For the most part, I have not run into significant limitations with typed-process so far. The biggest annoyances I have with it are those inherited from process, specifically that command line arguments and environment variables are specified as String s, leading to some character encoding issues.

I'm certain there are limitations of typed-process versus process. And for others, there may be a higher learning curve with typed-process versus process. I haven't received enough feedback on that yet to assess, however.

The other downside is dependencies, for those who worry about such things. In addition to depending on process itself (and therefore inheriting its dependencies), typed-process depends on async, bytestring, conduit, conduit-extra, exceptions, stm, and transformers. The conduit deps can easily be moved out, it's just for providing a convenience function that could be provided elsewhere. Regarding the others:

transformers is only needed for MonadIO . Now that MonadIO has moved into base, I could make that dependency conditional.

. Now that has moved into base, I could make that dependency conditional. The exceptions dependency makes withProcess more general, and would be a shame to lose.

more general, and would be a shame to lose. Dropping async and stm could be done by inlining their code here, which would work, but is a bad idea IMO.

The only reason for considering these changes would be the next section...

What's next?

I'm left with the question of what to do with this package, especially as more people ask questions that can be answered with "just use typed-process."

Do nothing. The package can live on Hackage/Stackage as-is, people who want to use it can use it, and that's it.

Add a note to the package process mentioning it as a potential, alternative API. Even though I'm currently the process package maintainer, I feel it would be inappropriate for me to make such a decision myself.

Even more radically: if there is strong support for this API, we could consider merging it back into the process package. I wouldn't be in favor of modifying the System.Process module (we should keep it as-is for backwards compatibility), but adding a new module with this API is certainly doable (sans the dependency issues mentioned aboved).

At the very least, this library has scratched a personal itch. If it helps others, that's a great perk :).

Do you like this blog post and need help with DevOps, Rust or functional programming? Contact us.

Share this