How can I periodically execute a function with asyncio?












34















I'm migrating from tornado to asyncio, and I can't find the asyncio equivalent of tornado's PeriodicCallback. (A PeriodicCallback takes two arguments: the function to run and the number of milliseconds between calls.)




  • Is there such an equivalent in asyncio?

  • If not, what would be the cleanest way to implement this without running the risk of getting a RecursionError after a while?










share|improve this question























  • gist.github.com/hirokiky/f4dae78b6d637f078e1c

    – Arunmu
    May 29 '16 at 16:22











  • Why do you need to move from tornado? They can work together, no? tornadoweb.org/en/stable/asyncio.html

    – cricket_007
    May 29 '16 at 16:29











  • Just add await asyncio.sleep(time) to your function.

    – shongololo
    Jul 2 '16 at 5:16













  • Same with Twisted, no LoopingCall implementation.

    – zgoda
    Jun 29 '18 at 14:16
















34















I'm migrating from tornado to asyncio, and I can't find the asyncio equivalent of tornado's PeriodicCallback. (A PeriodicCallback takes two arguments: the function to run and the number of milliseconds between calls.)




  • Is there such an equivalent in asyncio?

  • If not, what would be the cleanest way to implement this without running the risk of getting a RecursionError after a while?










share|improve this question























  • gist.github.com/hirokiky/f4dae78b6d637f078e1c

    – Arunmu
    May 29 '16 at 16:22











  • Why do you need to move from tornado? They can work together, no? tornadoweb.org/en/stable/asyncio.html

    – cricket_007
    May 29 '16 at 16:29











  • Just add await asyncio.sleep(time) to your function.

    – shongololo
    Jul 2 '16 at 5:16













  • Same with Twisted, no LoopingCall implementation.

    – zgoda
    Jun 29 '18 at 14:16














34












34








34


13






I'm migrating from tornado to asyncio, and I can't find the asyncio equivalent of tornado's PeriodicCallback. (A PeriodicCallback takes two arguments: the function to run and the number of milliseconds between calls.)




  • Is there such an equivalent in asyncio?

  • If not, what would be the cleanest way to implement this without running the risk of getting a RecursionError after a while?










share|improve this question














I'm migrating from tornado to asyncio, and I can't find the asyncio equivalent of tornado's PeriodicCallback. (A PeriodicCallback takes two arguments: the function to run and the number of milliseconds between calls.)




  • Is there such an equivalent in asyncio?

  • If not, what would be the cleanest way to implement this without running the risk of getting a RecursionError after a while?







python python-3.x tornado python-3.5 python-asyncio






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked May 29 '16 at 16:17









2Cubed2Cubed

1,44141333




1,44141333













  • gist.github.com/hirokiky/f4dae78b6d637f078e1c

    – Arunmu
    May 29 '16 at 16:22











  • Why do you need to move from tornado? They can work together, no? tornadoweb.org/en/stable/asyncio.html

    – cricket_007
    May 29 '16 at 16:29











  • Just add await asyncio.sleep(time) to your function.

    – shongololo
    Jul 2 '16 at 5:16













  • Same with Twisted, no LoopingCall implementation.

    – zgoda
    Jun 29 '18 at 14:16



















  • gist.github.com/hirokiky/f4dae78b6d637f078e1c

    – Arunmu
    May 29 '16 at 16:22











  • Why do you need to move from tornado? They can work together, no? tornadoweb.org/en/stable/asyncio.html

    – cricket_007
    May 29 '16 at 16:29











  • Just add await asyncio.sleep(time) to your function.

    – shongololo
    Jul 2 '16 at 5:16













  • Same with Twisted, no LoopingCall implementation.

    – zgoda
    Jun 29 '18 at 14:16

















gist.github.com/hirokiky/f4dae78b6d637f078e1c

– Arunmu
May 29 '16 at 16:22





gist.github.com/hirokiky/f4dae78b6d637f078e1c

– Arunmu
May 29 '16 at 16:22













Why do you need to move from tornado? They can work together, no? tornadoweb.org/en/stable/asyncio.html

– cricket_007
May 29 '16 at 16:29





Why do you need to move from tornado? They can work together, no? tornadoweb.org/en/stable/asyncio.html

– cricket_007
May 29 '16 at 16:29













Just add await asyncio.sleep(time) to your function.

– shongololo
Jul 2 '16 at 5:16







Just add await asyncio.sleep(time) to your function.

– shongololo
Jul 2 '16 at 5:16















Same with Twisted, no LoopingCall implementation.

– zgoda
Jun 29 '18 at 14:16





Same with Twisted, no LoopingCall implementation.

– zgoda
Jun 29 '18 at 14:16












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















27














For Python versions below 3.5:



import asyncio

@asyncio.coroutine
def periodic():
while True:
print('periodic')
yield from asyncio.sleep(1)

def stop():
task.cancel()

loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.call_later(5, stop)
task = loop.create_task(periodic())

try:
loop.run_until_complete(task)
except asyncio.CancelledError:
pass


For Python 3.5 and above:



import asyncio

async def periodic():
while True:
print('periodic')
await asyncio.sleep(1)

def stop():
task.cancel()

loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.call_later(5, stop)
task = loop.create_task(periodic())

try:
loop.run_until_complete(task)
except asyncio.CancelledError:
pass





share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    Even in Tornado, I'd recommend a loop like this instead of a PeriodicCallback for applications that make use of coroutines.

    – Ben Darnell
    May 29 '16 at 18:17






  • 7





    Just a quick note: Don’t directly create Task instances; use the ensure_future() function or the AbstractEventLoop.create_task() method. From the asyncio documentation.

    – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
    Jan 5 '17 at 22:38











  • A lambda may be used instead instead of the stop function. I.e.: loop.call_later(5, lambda: task.cancel())

    – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
    Jan 5 '17 at 22:41






  • 11





    Or you can just call it like loop.call_later(5, task.cancel).

    – ReWrite
    Jan 19 '17 at 1:32











  • Just a note for Python 3.7: From the asyncio doc, we should use the high-level asyncio.create_task() to create Tasks.

    – mhchia
    Jan 23 at 8:37





















17














When you feel that something should happen "in background" of your asyncio program, asyncio.Task might be good way to do it. You can read this post to see how to work with tasks.



Here's possible implementation of class that executes some function periodically:



import asyncio
from contextlib import suppress


class Periodic:
def __init__(self, func, time):
self.func = func
self.time = time
self.is_started = False
self._task = None

async def start(self):
if not self.is_started:
self.is_started = True
# Start task to call func periodically:
self._task = asyncio.ensure_future(self._run())

async def stop(self):
if self.is_started:
self.is_started = False
# Stop task and await it stopped:
self._task.cancel()
with suppress(asyncio.CancelledError):
await self._task

async def _run(self):
while True:
await asyncio.sleep(self.time)
self.func()


Let's test it:



async def main():
p = Periodic(lambda: print('test'), 1)
try:
print('Start')
await p.start()
await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

print('Stop')
await p.stop()
await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

print('Start')
await p.start()
await asyncio.sleep(3.1)
finally:
await p.stop() # we should stop task finally


if __name__ == '__main__':
loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
loop.run_until_complete(main())


Output:



Start
test
test
test

Stop

Start
test
test
test

[Finished in 9.5s]


As you see on start we just start task that calls some functions and sleeps some time in endless loop. On stop we just cancel that task. Note, that task should be stopped at the moment program finished.



One more important thing that your callback shouldn't take much time to be executed (or it'll freeze your event loop). If you're planning to call some long-running func, you possibly would need to run it in executor.






share|improve this answer


























  • The most complete and clear answer so far! Thanks. Is it good idea to require the func to be a coroutine, so we can: await self.func() in the _run method?

    – Sergey Belash
    Jan 30 '17 at 7:23











  • @SergeyBelash, sure, it'll be ok. Note only that since we cancel task at random time, your func may be also cancelled at random time. It means every await line inside your function can potentially raise CancelledError. But it's actual for every async function at all (just like KeyboardInterrupt can be raised randomly in regular non-async code).

    – Mikhail Gerasimov
    Jan 30 '17 at 8:02











  • I worry with this (and other answers) that the repeat rate won't be exactly the time value. If func takes an appreciable time to execute it won't even be close, and over a long period it will drift even if func takes negligible time.

    – Ian Goldby
    Dec 4 '17 at 11:29



















10














There is no built-in support for periodic calls, no.



Just create your own scheduler loop that sleeps and executes any tasks scheduled:



import math, time

async def scheduler():
while True:
# sleep until the next whole second
now = time.time()
await asyncio.sleep(math.ceil(now) - now)

# execute any scheduled tasks
await for task in scheduled_tasks(time.time()):
await task()


The scheduled_tasks() iterator should produce tasks that are ready to be run at the given time. Note that producing the schedule and kicking off all the tasks could in theory take longer than 1 second; the idea here is that the scheduler yields all tasks that should have started since the last check.






share|improve this answer
























  • The asyncio event loop has a time() method that could be used in place of the time module.

    – krs013
    May 26 '17 at 4:34






  • 1





    @krs013: That's a different clock; it doesn't necessarily give you real-world time (it depends on the event loop implementation, and can measure CPU time ticks or another monotonically increasing clock measure). Because it is not guaranteed to provide a measure in seconds, it should not be used here.

    – Martijn Pieters
    May 26 '17 at 6:29











  • Oh, good point, thanks. I figured that it would be good enough for interval timing, but it looks like no guarantee is made for accuracy in sleeping threads. The implementations I've seen seem to just use the machines uptime in nanoseconds, but yeah, you're right. I think I have some code to fix now...

    – krs013
    May 26 '17 at 6:37



















0














Based on @A. Jesse Jiryu Davis response (with @Torkel Bjørnson-Langen and @ReWrite comments) this is an improvement which avoids drift.



import time
import asyncio

@asyncio.coroutine
def periodic(period):
def g_tick():
t = time.time()
count = 0
while True:
count += 1
yield max(t + count * period - time.time(), 0)
g = g_tick()

while True:
print('periodic', time.time())
yield from asyncio.sleep(next(g))

loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
task = loop.create_task(periodic(1))
loop.call_later(5, task.cancel)

try:
loop.run_until_complete(task)
except asyncio.CancelledError:
pass





share|improve this answer
























  • periodic should probably use loop.time() in preference to time.time() because loop.time() is the time reference internally used by asyncio.sleep(). loop.time() returns monotonic time, while time.time() returns wallclock time. The two will differ e.g. when a system administrator modifies the date on the system, or when NTP adjusts wallclock time.

    – user4815162342
    Feb 4 '18 at 21:29



















0














Alternative version with decorator for python 3.7



import asyncio
import time


def periodic(period):
def scheduler(fcn):

async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):

while True:
asyncio.create_task(fcn(*args, **kwargs))
await asyncio.sleep(period)

return wrapper

return scheduler


@periodic(2)
async def do_something(*args, **kwargs):
await asyncio.sleep(5) # Do some heavy calculation
print(time.time())


if __name__ == '__main__':
asyncio.run(do_something('Maluzinha do papai!', secret=42))





share|improve this answer























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f37512182%2fhow-can-i-periodically-execute-a-function-with-asyncio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    27














    For Python versions below 3.5:



    import asyncio

    @asyncio.coroutine
    def periodic():
    while True:
    print('periodic')
    yield from asyncio.sleep(1)

    def stop():
    task.cancel()

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.call_later(5, stop)
    task = loop.create_task(periodic())

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass


    For Python 3.5 and above:



    import asyncio

    async def periodic():
    while True:
    print('periodic')
    await asyncio.sleep(1)

    def stop():
    task.cancel()

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.call_later(5, stop)
    task = loop.create_task(periodic())

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass





    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      Even in Tornado, I'd recommend a loop like this instead of a PeriodicCallback for applications that make use of coroutines.

      – Ben Darnell
      May 29 '16 at 18:17






    • 7





      Just a quick note: Don’t directly create Task instances; use the ensure_future() function or the AbstractEventLoop.create_task() method. From the asyncio documentation.

      – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
      Jan 5 '17 at 22:38











    • A lambda may be used instead instead of the stop function. I.e.: loop.call_later(5, lambda: task.cancel())

      – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
      Jan 5 '17 at 22:41






    • 11





      Or you can just call it like loop.call_later(5, task.cancel).

      – ReWrite
      Jan 19 '17 at 1:32











    • Just a note for Python 3.7: From the asyncio doc, we should use the high-level asyncio.create_task() to create Tasks.

      – mhchia
      Jan 23 at 8:37


















    27














    For Python versions below 3.5:



    import asyncio

    @asyncio.coroutine
    def periodic():
    while True:
    print('periodic')
    yield from asyncio.sleep(1)

    def stop():
    task.cancel()

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.call_later(5, stop)
    task = loop.create_task(periodic())

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass


    For Python 3.5 and above:



    import asyncio

    async def periodic():
    while True:
    print('periodic')
    await asyncio.sleep(1)

    def stop():
    task.cancel()

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.call_later(5, stop)
    task = loop.create_task(periodic())

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass





    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      Even in Tornado, I'd recommend a loop like this instead of a PeriodicCallback for applications that make use of coroutines.

      – Ben Darnell
      May 29 '16 at 18:17






    • 7





      Just a quick note: Don’t directly create Task instances; use the ensure_future() function or the AbstractEventLoop.create_task() method. From the asyncio documentation.

      – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
      Jan 5 '17 at 22:38











    • A lambda may be used instead instead of the stop function. I.e.: loop.call_later(5, lambda: task.cancel())

      – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
      Jan 5 '17 at 22:41






    • 11





      Or you can just call it like loop.call_later(5, task.cancel).

      – ReWrite
      Jan 19 '17 at 1:32











    • Just a note for Python 3.7: From the asyncio doc, we should use the high-level asyncio.create_task() to create Tasks.

      – mhchia
      Jan 23 at 8:37
















    27












    27








    27







    For Python versions below 3.5:



    import asyncio

    @asyncio.coroutine
    def periodic():
    while True:
    print('periodic')
    yield from asyncio.sleep(1)

    def stop():
    task.cancel()

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.call_later(5, stop)
    task = loop.create_task(periodic())

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass


    For Python 3.5 and above:



    import asyncio

    async def periodic():
    while True:
    print('periodic')
    await asyncio.sleep(1)

    def stop():
    task.cancel()

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.call_later(5, stop)
    task = loop.create_task(periodic())

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass





    share|improve this answer















    For Python versions below 3.5:



    import asyncio

    @asyncio.coroutine
    def periodic():
    while True:
    print('periodic')
    yield from asyncio.sleep(1)

    def stop():
    task.cancel()

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.call_later(5, stop)
    task = loop.create_task(periodic())

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass


    For Python 3.5 and above:



    import asyncio

    async def periodic():
    while True:
    print('periodic')
    await asyncio.sleep(1)

    def stop():
    task.cancel()

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.call_later(5, stop)
    task = loop.create_task(periodic())

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass






    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 13 '18 at 11:02









    Lonami

    5371614




    5371614










    answered May 29 '16 at 16:53









    A. Jesse Jiryu DavisA. Jesse Jiryu Davis

    18.4k33349




    18.4k33349








    • 3





      Even in Tornado, I'd recommend a loop like this instead of a PeriodicCallback for applications that make use of coroutines.

      – Ben Darnell
      May 29 '16 at 18:17






    • 7





      Just a quick note: Don’t directly create Task instances; use the ensure_future() function or the AbstractEventLoop.create_task() method. From the asyncio documentation.

      – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
      Jan 5 '17 at 22:38











    • A lambda may be used instead instead of the stop function. I.e.: loop.call_later(5, lambda: task.cancel())

      – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
      Jan 5 '17 at 22:41






    • 11





      Or you can just call it like loop.call_later(5, task.cancel).

      – ReWrite
      Jan 19 '17 at 1:32











    • Just a note for Python 3.7: From the asyncio doc, we should use the high-level asyncio.create_task() to create Tasks.

      – mhchia
      Jan 23 at 8:37
















    • 3





      Even in Tornado, I'd recommend a loop like this instead of a PeriodicCallback for applications that make use of coroutines.

      – Ben Darnell
      May 29 '16 at 18:17






    • 7





      Just a quick note: Don’t directly create Task instances; use the ensure_future() function or the AbstractEventLoop.create_task() method. From the asyncio documentation.

      – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
      Jan 5 '17 at 22:38











    • A lambda may be used instead instead of the stop function. I.e.: loop.call_later(5, lambda: task.cancel())

      – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
      Jan 5 '17 at 22:41






    • 11





      Or you can just call it like loop.call_later(5, task.cancel).

      – ReWrite
      Jan 19 '17 at 1:32











    • Just a note for Python 3.7: From the asyncio doc, we should use the high-level asyncio.create_task() to create Tasks.

      – mhchia
      Jan 23 at 8:37










    3




    3





    Even in Tornado, I'd recommend a loop like this instead of a PeriodicCallback for applications that make use of coroutines.

    – Ben Darnell
    May 29 '16 at 18:17





    Even in Tornado, I'd recommend a loop like this instead of a PeriodicCallback for applications that make use of coroutines.

    – Ben Darnell
    May 29 '16 at 18:17




    7




    7





    Just a quick note: Don’t directly create Task instances; use the ensure_future() function or the AbstractEventLoop.create_task() method. From the asyncio documentation.

    – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
    Jan 5 '17 at 22:38





    Just a quick note: Don’t directly create Task instances; use the ensure_future() function or the AbstractEventLoop.create_task() method. From the asyncio documentation.

    – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
    Jan 5 '17 at 22:38













    A lambda may be used instead instead of the stop function. I.e.: loop.call_later(5, lambda: task.cancel())

    – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
    Jan 5 '17 at 22:41





    A lambda may be used instead instead of the stop function. I.e.: loop.call_later(5, lambda: task.cancel())

    – Torkel Bjørnson-Langen
    Jan 5 '17 at 22:41




    11




    11





    Or you can just call it like loop.call_later(5, task.cancel).

    – ReWrite
    Jan 19 '17 at 1:32





    Or you can just call it like loop.call_later(5, task.cancel).

    – ReWrite
    Jan 19 '17 at 1:32













    Just a note for Python 3.7: From the asyncio doc, we should use the high-level asyncio.create_task() to create Tasks.

    – mhchia
    Jan 23 at 8:37







    Just a note for Python 3.7: From the asyncio doc, we should use the high-level asyncio.create_task() to create Tasks.

    – mhchia
    Jan 23 at 8:37















    17














    When you feel that something should happen "in background" of your asyncio program, asyncio.Task might be good way to do it. You can read this post to see how to work with tasks.



    Here's possible implementation of class that executes some function periodically:



    import asyncio
    from contextlib import suppress


    class Periodic:
    def __init__(self, func, time):
    self.func = func
    self.time = time
    self.is_started = False
    self._task = None

    async def start(self):
    if not self.is_started:
    self.is_started = True
    # Start task to call func periodically:
    self._task = asyncio.ensure_future(self._run())

    async def stop(self):
    if self.is_started:
    self.is_started = False
    # Stop task and await it stopped:
    self._task.cancel()
    with suppress(asyncio.CancelledError):
    await self._task

    async def _run(self):
    while True:
    await asyncio.sleep(self.time)
    self.func()


    Let's test it:



    async def main():
    p = Periodic(lambda: print('test'), 1)
    try:
    print('Start')
    await p.start()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

    print('Stop')
    await p.stop()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

    print('Start')
    await p.start()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)
    finally:
    await p.stop() # we should stop task finally


    if __name__ == '__main__':
    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.run_until_complete(main())


    Output:



    Start
    test
    test
    test

    Stop

    Start
    test
    test
    test

    [Finished in 9.5s]


    As you see on start we just start task that calls some functions and sleeps some time in endless loop. On stop we just cancel that task. Note, that task should be stopped at the moment program finished.



    One more important thing that your callback shouldn't take much time to be executed (or it'll freeze your event loop). If you're planning to call some long-running func, you possibly would need to run it in executor.






    share|improve this answer


























    • The most complete and clear answer so far! Thanks. Is it good idea to require the func to be a coroutine, so we can: await self.func() in the _run method?

      – Sergey Belash
      Jan 30 '17 at 7:23











    • @SergeyBelash, sure, it'll be ok. Note only that since we cancel task at random time, your func may be also cancelled at random time. It means every await line inside your function can potentially raise CancelledError. But it's actual for every async function at all (just like KeyboardInterrupt can be raised randomly in regular non-async code).

      – Mikhail Gerasimov
      Jan 30 '17 at 8:02











    • I worry with this (and other answers) that the repeat rate won't be exactly the time value. If func takes an appreciable time to execute it won't even be close, and over a long period it will drift even if func takes negligible time.

      – Ian Goldby
      Dec 4 '17 at 11:29
















    17














    When you feel that something should happen "in background" of your asyncio program, asyncio.Task might be good way to do it. You can read this post to see how to work with tasks.



    Here's possible implementation of class that executes some function periodically:



    import asyncio
    from contextlib import suppress


    class Periodic:
    def __init__(self, func, time):
    self.func = func
    self.time = time
    self.is_started = False
    self._task = None

    async def start(self):
    if not self.is_started:
    self.is_started = True
    # Start task to call func periodically:
    self._task = asyncio.ensure_future(self._run())

    async def stop(self):
    if self.is_started:
    self.is_started = False
    # Stop task and await it stopped:
    self._task.cancel()
    with suppress(asyncio.CancelledError):
    await self._task

    async def _run(self):
    while True:
    await asyncio.sleep(self.time)
    self.func()


    Let's test it:



    async def main():
    p = Periodic(lambda: print('test'), 1)
    try:
    print('Start')
    await p.start()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

    print('Stop')
    await p.stop()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

    print('Start')
    await p.start()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)
    finally:
    await p.stop() # we should stop task finally


    if __name__ == '__main__':
    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.run_until_complete(main())


    Output:



    Start
    test
    test
    test

    Stop

    Start
    test
    test
    test

    [Finished in 9.5s]


    As you see on start we just start task that calls some functions and sleeps some time in endless loop. On stop we just cancel that task. Note, that task should be stopped at the moment program finished.



    One more important thing that your callback shouldn't take much time to be executed (or it'll freeze your event loop). If you're planning to call some long-running func, you possibly would need to run it in executor.






    share|improve this answer


























    • The most complete and clear answer so far! Thanks. Is it good idea to require the func to be a coroutine, so we can: await self.func() in the _run method?

      – Sergey Belash
      Jan 30 '17 at 7:23











    • @SergeyBelash, sure, it'll be ok. Note only that since we cancel task at random time, your func may be also cancelled at random time. It means every await line inside your function can potentially raise CancelledError. But it's actual for every async function at all (just like KeyboardInterrupt can be raised randomly in regular non-async code).

      – Mikhail Gerasimov
      Jan 30 '17 at 8:02











    • I worry with this (and other answers) that the repeat rate won't be exactly the time value. If func takes an appreciable time to execute it won't even be close, and over a long period it will drift even if func takes negligible time.

      – Ian Goldby
      Dec 4 '17 at 11:29














    17












    17








    17







    When you feel that something should happen "in background" of your asyncio program, asyncio.Task might be good way to do it. You can read this post to see how to work with tasks.



    Here's possible implementation of class that executes some function periodically:



    import asyncio
    from contextlib import suppress


    class Periodic:
    def __init__(self, func, time):
    self.func = func
    self.time = time
    self.is_started = False
    self._task = None

    async def start(self):
    if not self.is_started:
    self.is_started = True
    # Start task to call func periodically:
    self._task = asyncio.ensure_future(self._run())

    async def stop(self):
    if self.is_started:
    self.is_started = False
    # Stop task and await it stopped:
    self._task.cancel()
    with suppress(asyncio.CancelledError):
    await self._task

    async def _run(self):
    while True:
    await asyncio.sleep(self.time)
    self.func()


    Let's test it:



    async def main():
    p = Periodic(lambda: print('test'), 1)
    try:
    print('Start')
    await p.start()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

    print('Stop')
    await p.stop()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

    print('Start')
    await p.start()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)
    finally:
    await p.stop() # we should stop task finally


    if __name__ == '__main__':
    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.run_until_complete(main())


    Output:



    Start
    test
    test
    test

    Stop

    Start
    test
    test
    test

    [Finished in 9.5s]


    As you see on start we just start task that calls some functions and sleeps some time in endless loop. On stop we just cancel that task. Note, that task should be stopped at the moment program finished.



    One more important thing that your callback shouldn't take much time to be executed (or it'll freeze your event loop). If you're planning to call some long-running func, you possibly would need to run it in executor.






    share|improve this answer















    When you feel that something should happen "in background" of your asyncio program, asyncio.Task might be good way to do it. You can read this post to see how to work with tasks.



    Here's possible implementation of class that executes some function periodically:



    import asyncio
    from contextlib import suppress


    class Periodic:
    def __init__(self, func, time):
    self.func = func
    self.time = time
    self.is_started = False
    self._task = None

    async def start(self):
    if not self.is_started:
    self.is_started = True
    # Start task to call func periodically:
    self._task = asyncio.ensure_future(self._run())

    async def stop(self):
    if self.is_started:
    self.is_started = False
    # Stop task and await it stopped:
    self._task.cancel()
    with suppress(asyncio.CancelledError):
    await self._task

    async def _run(self):
    while True:
    await asyncio.sleep(self.time)
    self.func()


    Let's test it:



    async def main():
    p = Periodic(lambda: print('test'), 1)
    try:
    print('Start')
    await p.start()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

    print('Stop')
    await p.stop()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)

    print('Start')
    await p.start()
    await asyncio.sleep(3.1)
    finally:
    await p.stop() # we should stop task finally


    if __name__ == '__main__':
    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    loop.run_until_complete(main())


    Output:



    Start
    test
    test
    test

    Stop

    Start
    test
    test
    test

    [Finished in 9.5s]


    As you see on start we just start task that calls some functions and sleeps some time in endless loop. On stop we just cancel that task. Note, that task should be stopped at the moment program finished.



    One more important thing that your callback shouldn't take much time to be executed (or it'll freeze your event loop). If you're planning to call some long-running func, you possibly would need to run it in executor.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited May 23 '17 at 12:02









    Community

    11




    11










    answered May 29 '16 at 20:27









    Mikhail GerasimovMikhail Gerasimov

    13.4k43765




    13.4k43765













    • The most complete and clear answer so far! Thanks. Is it good idea to require the func to be a coroutine, so we can: await self.func() in the _run method?

      – Sergey Belash
      Jan 30 '17 at 7:23











    • @SergeyBelash, sure, it'll be ok. Note only that since we cancel task at random time, your func may be also cancelled at random time. It means every await line inside your function can potentially raise CancelledError. But it's actual for every async function at all (just like KeyboardInterrupt can be raised randomly in regular non-async code).

      – Mikhail Gerasimov
      Jan 30 '17 at 8:02











    • I worry with this (and other answers) that the repeat rate won't be exactly the time value. If func takes an appreciable time to execute it won't even be close, and over a long period it will drift even if func takes negligible time.

      – Ian Goldby
      Dec 4 '17 at 11:29



















    • The most complete and clear answer so far! Thanks. Is it good idea to require the func to be a coroutine, so we can: await self.func() in the _run method?

      – Sergey Belash
      Jan 30 '17 at 7:23











    • @SergeyBelash, sure, it'll be ok. Note only that since we cancel task at random time, your func may be also cancelled at random time. It means every await line inside your function can potentially raise CancelledError. But it's actual for every async function at all (just like KeyboardInterrupt can be raised randomly in regular non-async code).

      – Mikhail Gerasimov
      Jan 30 '17 at 8:02











    • I worry with this (and other answers) that the repeat rate won't be exactly the time value. If func takes an appreciable time to execute it won't even be close, and over a long period it will drift even if func takes negligible time.

      – Ian Goldby
      Dec 4 '17 at 11:29

















    The most complete and clear answer so far! Thanks. Is it good idea to require the func to be a coroutine, so we can: await self.func() in the _run method?

    – Sergey Belash
    Jan 30 '17 at 7:23





    The most complete and clear answer so far! Thanks. Is it good idea to require the func to be a coroutine, so we can: await self.func() in the _run method?

    – Sergey Belash
    Jan 30 '17 at 7:23













    @SergeyBelash, sure, it'll be ok. Note only that since we cancel task at random time, your func may be also cancelled at random time. It means every await line inside your function can potentially raise CancelledError. But it's actual for every async function at all (just like KeyboardInterrupt can be raised randomly in regular non-async code).

    – Mikhail Gerasimov
    Jan 30 '17 at 8:02





    @SergeyBelash, sure, it'll be ok. Note only that since we cancel task at random time, your func may be also cancelled at random time. It means every await line inside your function can potentially raise CancelledError. But it's actual for every async function at all (just like KeyboardInterrupt can be raised randomly in regular non-async code).

    – Mikhail Gerasimov
    Jan 30 '17 at 8:02













    I worry with this (and other answers) that the repeat rate won't be exactly the time value. If func takes an appreciable time to execute it won't even be close, and over a long period it will drift even if func takes negligible time.

    – Ian Goldby
    Dec 4 '17 at 11:29





    I worry with this (and other answers) that the repeat rate won't be exactly the time value. If func takes an appreciable time to execute it won't even be close, and over a long period it will drift even if func takes negligible time.

    – Ian Goldby
    Dec 4 '17 at 11:29











    10














    There is no built-in support for periodic calls, no.



    Just create your own scheduler loop that sleeps and executes any tasks scheduled:



    import math, time

    async def scheduler():
    while True:
    # sleep until the next whole second
    now = time.time()
    await asyncio.sleep(math.ceil(now) - now)

    # execute any scheduled tasks
    await for task in scheduled_tasks(time.time()):
    await task()


    The scheduled_tasks() iterator should produce tasks that are ready to be run at the given time. Note that producing the schedule and kicking off all the tasks could in theory take longer than 1 second; the idea here is that the scheduler yields all tasks that should have started since the last check.






    share|improve this answer
























    • The asyncio event loop has a time() method that could be used in place of the time module.

      – krs013
      May 26 '17 at 4:34






    • 1





      @krs013: That's a different clock; it doesn't necessarily give you real-world time (it depends on the event loop implementation, and can measure CPU time ticks or another monotonically increasing clock measure). Because it is not guaranteed to provide a measure in seconds, it should not be used here.

      – Martijn Pieters
      May 26 '17 at 6:29











    • Oh, good point, thanks. I figured that it would be good enough for interval timing, but it looks like no guarantee is made for accuracy in sleeping threads. The implementations I've seen seem to just use the machines uptime in nanoseconds, but yeah, you're right. I think I have some code to fix now...

      – krs013
      May 26 '17 at 6:37
















    10














    There is no built-in support for periodic calls, no.



    Just create your own scheduler loop that sleeps and executes any tasks scheduled:



    import math, time

    async def scheduler():
    while True:
    # sleep until the next whole second
    now = time.time()
    await asyncio.sleep(math.ceil(now) - now)

    # execute any scheduled tasks
    await for task in scheduled_tasks(time.time()):
    await task()


    The scheduled_tasks() iterator should produce tasks that are ready to be run at the given time. Note that producing the schedule and kicking off all the tasks could in theory take longer than 1 second; the idea here is that the scheduler yields all tasks that should have started since the last check.






    share|improve this answer
























    • The asyncio event loop has a time() method that could be used in place of the time module.

      – krs013
      May 26 '17 at 4:34






    • 1





      @krs013: That's a different clock; it doesn't necessarily give you real-world time (it depends on the event loop implementation, and can measure CPU time ticks or another monotonically increasing clock measure). Because it is not guaranteed to provide a measure in seconds, it should not be used here.

      – Martijn Pieters
      May 26 '17 at 6:29











    • Oh, good point, thanks. I figured that it would be good enough for interval timing, but it looks like no guarantee is made for accuracy in sleeping threads. The implementations I've seen seem to just use the machines uptime in nanoseconds, but yeah, you're right. I think I have some code to fix now...

      – krs013
      May 26 '17 at 6:37














    10












    10








    10







    There is no built-in support for periodic calls, no.



    Just create your own scheduler loop that sleeps and executes any tasks scheduled:



    import math, time

    async def scheduler():
    while True:
    # sleep until the next whole second
    now = time.time()
    await asyncio.sleep(math.ceil(now) - now)

    # execute any scheduled tasks
    await for task in scheduled_tasks(time.time()):
    await task()


    The scheduled_tasks() iterator should produce tasks that are ready to be run at the given time. Note that producing the schedule and kicking off all the tasks could in theory take longer than 1 second; the idea here is that the scheduler yields all tasks that should have started since the last check.






    share|improve this answer













    There is no built-in support for periodic calls, no.



    Just create your own scheduler loop that sleeps and executes any tasks scheduled:



    import math, time

    async def scheduler():
    while True:
    # sleep until the next whole second
    now = time.time()
    await asyncio.sleep(math.ceil(now) - now)

    # execute any scheduled tasks
    await for task in scheduled_tasks(time.time()):
    await task()


    The scheduled_tasks() iterator should produce tasks that are ready to be run at the given time. Note that producing the schedule and kicking off all the tasks could in theory take longer than 1 second; the idea here is that the scheduler yields all tasks that should have started since the last check.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered May 29 '16 at 16:41









    Martijn PietersMartijn Pieters

    708k13624732296




    708k13624732296













    • The asyncio event loop has a time() method that could be used in place of the time module.

      – krs013
      May 26 '17 at 4:34






    • 1





      @krs013: That's a different clock; it doesn't necessarily give you real-world time (it depends on the event loop implementation, and can measure CPU time ticks or another monotonically increasing clock measure). Because it is not guaranteed to provide a measure in seconds, it should not be used here.

      – Martijn Pieters
      May 26 '17 at 6:29











    • Oh, good point, thanks. I figured that it would be good enough for interval timing, but it looks like no guarantee is made for accuracy in sleeping threads. The implementations I've seen seem to just use the machines uptime in nanoseconds, but yeah, you're right. I think I have some code to fix now...

      – krs013
      May 26 '17 at 6:37



















    • The asyncio event loop has a time() method that could be used in place of the time module.

      – krs013
      May 26 '17 at 4:34






    • 1





      @krs013: That's a different clock; it doesn't necessarily give you real-world time (it depends on the event loop implementation, and can measure CPU time ticks or another monotonically increasing clock measure). Because it is not guaranteed to provide a measure in seconds, it should not be used here.

      – Martijn Pieters
      May 26 '17 at 6:29











    • Oh, good point, thanks. I figured that it would be good enough for interval timing, but it looks like no guarantee is made for accuracy in sleeping threads. The implementations I've seen seem to just use the machines uptime in nanoseconds, but yeah, you're right. I think I have some code to fix now...

      – krs013
      May 26 '17 at 6:37

















    The asyncio event loop has a time() method that could be used in place of the time module.

    – krs013
    May 26 '17 at 4:34





    The asyncio event loop has a time() method that could be used in place of the time module.

    – krs013
    May 26 '17 at 4:34




    1




    1





    @krs013: That's a different clock; it doesn't necessarily give you real-world time (it depends on the event loop implementation, and can measure CPU time ticks or another monotonically increasing clock measure). Because it is not guaranteed to provide a measure in seconds, it should not be used here.

    – Martijn Pieters
    May 26 '17 at 6:29





    @krs013: That's a different clock; it doesn't necessarily give you real-world time (it depends on the event loop implementation, and can measure CPU time ticks or another monotonically increasing clock measure). Because it is not guaranteed to provide a measure in seconds, it should not be used here.

    – Martijn Pieters
    May 26 '17 at 6:29













    Oh, good point, thanks. I figured that it would be good enough for interval timing, but it looks like no guarantee is made for accuracy in sleeping threads. The implementations I've seen seem to just use the machines uptime in nanoseconds, but yeah, you're right. I think I have some code to fix now...

    – krs013
    May 26 '17 at 6:37





    Oh, good point, thanks. I figured that it would be good enough for interval timing, but it looks like no guarantee is made for accuracy in sleeping threads. The implementations I've seen seem to just use the machines uptime in nanoseconds, but yeah, you're right. I think I have some code to fix now...

    – krs013
    May 26 '17 at 6:37











    0














    Based on @A. Jesse Jiryu Davis response (with @Torkel Bjørnson-Langen and @ReWrite comments) this is an improvement which avoids drift.



    import time
    import asyncio

    @asyncio.coroutine
    def periodic(period):
    def g_tick():
    t = time.time()
    count = 0
    while True:
    count += 1
    yield max(t + count * period - time.time(), 0)
    g = g_tick()

    while True:
    print('periodic', time.time())
    yield from asyncio.sleep(next(g))

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    task = loop.create_task(periodic(1))
    loop.call_later(5, task.cancel)

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass





    share|improve this answer
























    • periodic should probably use loop.time() in preference to time.time() because loop.time() is the time reference internally used by asyncio.sleep(). loop.time() returns monotonic time, while time.time() returns wallclock time. The two will differ e.g. when a system administrator modifies the date on the system, or when NTP adjusts wallclock time.

      – user4815162342
      Feb 4 '18 at 21:29
















    0














    Based on @A. Jesse Jiryu Davis response (with @Torkel Bjørnson-Langen and @ReWrite comments) this is an improvement which avoids drift.



    import time
    import asyncio

    @asyncio.coroutine
    def periodic(period):
    def g_tick():
    t = time.time()
    count = 0
    while True:
    count += 1
    yield max(t + count * period - time.time(), 0)
    g = g_tick()

    while True:
    print('periodic', time.time())
    yield from asyncio.sleep(next(g))

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    task = loop.create_task(periodic(1))
    loop.call_later(5, task.cancel)

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass





    share|improve this answer
























    • periodic should probably use loop.time() in preference to time.time() because loop.time() is the time reference internally used by asyncio.sleep(). loop.time() returns monotonic time, while time.time() returns wallclock time. The two will differ e.g. when a system administrator modifies the date on the system, or when NTP adjusts wallclock time.

      – user4815162342
      Feb 4 '18 at 21:29














    0












    0








    0







    Based on @A. Jesse Jiryu Davis response (with @Torkel Bjørnson-Langen and @ReWrite comments) this is an improvement which avoids drift.



    import time
    import asyncio

    @asyncio.coroutine
    def periodic(period):
    def g_tick():
    t = time.time()
    count = 0
    while True:
    count += 1
    yield max(t + count * period - time.time(), 0)
    g = g_tick()

    while True:
    print('periodic', time.time())
    yield from asyncio.sleep(next(g))

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    task = loop.create_task(periodic(1))
    loop.call_later(5, task.cancel)

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass





    share|improve this answer













    Based on @A. Jesse Jiryu Davis response (with @Torkel Bjørnson-Langen and @ReWrite comments) this is an improvement which avoids drift.



    import time
    import asyncio

    @asyncio.coroutine
    def periodic(period):
    def g_tick():
    t = time.time()
    count = 0
    while True:
    count += 1
    yield max(t + count * period - time.time(), 0)
    g = g_tick()

    while True:
    print('periodic', time.time())
    yield from asyncio.sleep(next(g))

    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    task = loop.create_task(periodic(1))
    loop.call_later(5, task.cancel)

    try:
    loop.run_until_complete(task)
    except asyncio.CancelledError:
    pass






    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Jan 11 '18 at 9:53









    Wojciech MigdaWojciech Migda

    40749




    40749













    • periodic should probably use loop.time() in preference to time.time() because loop.time() is the time reference internally used by asyncio.sleep(). loop.time() returns monotonic time, while time.time() returns wallclock time. The two will differ e.g. when a system administrator modifies the date on the system, or when NTP adjusts wallclock time.

      – user4815162342
      Feb 4 '18 at 21:29



















    • periodic should probably use loop.time() in preference to time.time() because loop.time() is the time reference internally used by asyncio.sleep(). loop.time() returns monotonic time, while time.time() returns wallclock time. The two will differ e.g. when a system administrator modifies the date on the system, or when NTP adjusts wallclock time.

      – user4815162342
      Feb 4 '18 at 21:29

















    periodic should probably use loop.time() in preference to time.time() because loop.time() is the time reference internally used by asyncio.sleep(). loop.time() returns monotonic time, while time.time() returns wallclock time. The two will differ e.g. when a system administrator modifies the date on the system, or when NTP adjusts wallclock time.

    – user4815162342
    Feb 4 '18 at 21:29





    periodic should probably use loop.time() in preference to time.time() because loop.time() is the time reference internally used by asyncio.sleep(). loop.time() returns monotonic time, while time.time() returns wallclock time. The two will differ e.g. when a system administrator modifies the date on the system, or when NTP adjusts wallclock time.

    – user4815162342
    Feb 4 '18 at 21:29











    0














    Alternative version with decorator for python 3.7



    import asyncio
    import time


    def periodic(period):
    def scheduler(fcn):

    async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):

    while True:
    asyncio.create_task(fcn(*args, **kwargs))
    await asyncio.sleep(period)

    return wrapper

    return scheduler


    @periodic(2)
    async def do_something(*args, **kwargs):
    await asyncio.sleep(5) # Do some heavy calculation
    print(time.time())


    if __name__ == '__main__':
    asyncio.run(do_something('Maluzinha do papai!', secret=42))





    share|improve this answer




























      0














      Alternative version with decorator for python 3.7



      import asyncio
      import time


      def periodic(period):
      def scheduler(fcn):

      async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):

      while True:
      asyncio.create_task(fcn(*args, **kwargs))
      await asyncio.sleep(period)

      return wrapper

      return scheduler


      @periodic(2)
      async def do_something(*args, **kwargs):
      await asyncio.sleep(5) # Do some heavy calculation
      print(time.time())


      if __name__ == '__main__':
      asyncio.run(do_something('Maluzinha do papai!', secret=42))





      share|improve this answer


























        0












        0








        0







        Alternative version with decorator for python 3.7



        import asyncio
        import time


        def periodic(period):
        def scheduler(fcn):

        async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):

        while True:
        asyncio.create_task(fcn(*args, **kwargs))
        await asyncio.sleep(period)

        return wrapper

        return scheduler


        @periodic(2)
        async def do_something(*args, **kwargs):
        await asyncio.sleep(5) # Do some heavy calculation
        print(time.time())


        if __name__ == '__main__':
        asyncio.run(do_something('Maluzinha do papai!', secret=42))





        share|improve this answer













        Alternative version with decorator for python 3.7



        import asyncio
        import time


        def periodic(period):
        def scheduler(fcn):

        async def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):

        while True:
        asyncio.create_task(fcn(*args, **kwargs))
        await asyncio.sleep(period)

        return wrapper

        return scheduler


        @periodic(2)
        async def do_something(*args, **kwargs):
        await asyncio.sleep(5) # Do some heavy calculation
        print(time.time())


        if __name__ == '__main__':
        asyncio.run(do_something('Maluzinha do papai!', secret=42))






        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 14 '18 at 5:07









        Fernando José Esteves de SouzaFernando José Esteves de Souza

        1




        1






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f37512182%2fhow-can-i-periodically-execute-a-function-with-asyncio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Homophylophilia

            Updating UILabel text programmatically using a function

            Cloud Functions - OpenCV Videocapture Read method fails for larger files from cloud storage