typer VS sh

He is probably most well know for creating FastAPI that I taught to some of my clients and Typer that I've never used.

I have been using Typer on every one of my CLI projects which uses Click under the hood. The documentation is fantastic, the CLI app it produces looks great and lets you create things quickly. I high recommend it.

https://typer.tiangolo.com/

Adding CLI capabilities. My preferred library here is typer.

I just heard about this but it seems to be pretty much the type of thing you want and want fast.

Docstrings are for documenting how a function/ class/ method/ module works. Often you don't need to add a docstring to your main function because no one will be importing it to use elsewhere. And if you want it to run as a CLI, then there are better ways to document the available options. For example, typer does most of it for you, or in click you add the help text to the decorator.

Most computing tasks in airflow DAGs are KubernetesPodOperator containing a CLI (Python Typer). It allows us to pass arguments easily to run DAG manually if needed (the new UI to pass arguments to DAG in airflow 2.6 is really nice). Arguments allow us to replay DAG easily (change start / end dates for instance).

So it's basically the main .gitlab-ci.yml file plus a separate Python CI app using Typer for the AWS instrumentation.

Similarly for Typer, which is literally "the FastAPI of CLIs"[1]. Handy to type your `main` parameters and have CLI argument parsing. For more complicated cases, it's a wrapper around Click.

[1] https://typer.tiangolo.com/

I usually replace shell scripts with python (using sh module: https://amoffat.github.io/sh/ for calling other scripts/programs).

> sh relies on various Unix system calls and only works on Unix-like operating systems - Linux, macOS, BSDs etc. Specifically, Windows is not supported.

from: https://amoffat.github.io/sh/

You can even run interpreted languages as a shell. See plumbum or sh for ways to make it a more comfortable shell and ipython for a better version of the shell.

100% agree. There are some libraries like https://amoffat.github.io/sh/ that aim to make that easier, but they always have some quirks that, funnily enough, are often the corner cases you were hitting in your complicated Bash script in the first place.

Another way to make Python scripts nicer is to use https://github.com/amoffat/sh

pdbpp: Improved pdb boltons: assorted python addtions twisted: event driven networking framework sorcery: Dark magic in python, things know where+how they are being called, helps reducing boilerplate sh: Better alternative for subprocess module, much more pythonic taskipy: npm run scipt_name like functionality snoop: pdb lite, record+replay function steps birdseye: graphical debugger remote-pdb: easy pdb from inside containers typer: wrapper around click for simpler code for CLIs arrow: Always TZ aware datetimes, plus more features more-itertools: more functions for iterators pydantic: data validation + dataclasses loguru: better logging notifiers: sending notifications from python

Sh sh and outside python, watch watch