It seems there are already quite some questions here about relative import in python 3, but after going through many of them I still didn\'t find the answer for my issue. s
if you have an __init__.py
in an upper folder, you can initialize the import as
import file/path as alias
in that init file. Then you can use it on lower scripts as:
import alias
EDIT: There are better/more coherent answers to this question in other questions:
Why doesn't it work? It's because python doesn't record where a package was loaded from. So when you do python -m test_A.test
, it basically just discards the knowledge that test_A.test
is actually stored in package
(i.e. package
is not considered a package). Attempting from ..A import foo
is trying to access information it doesn't have any more (i.e. sibling directories of a loaded location). It's conceptually similar to allowing from ..os import path
in a file in math
. This would be bad because you want the packages to be distinct. If they need to use something from another package, then they should refer to them globally with from os import path
and let python work out where that is with $PATH
and $PYTHONPATH
.
When you use python -m package.test_A.test
, then using from ..A import foo
resolves just fine because it kept track of what's in package
and you're just accessing a child directory of a loaded location.
Why doesn't python consider the current working directory to be a package? NO CLUE, but gosh it would be useful.
This is very tricky in Python.
I'll first comment on why you're having that problem and then I will mention two possible solutions.
You must take this paragraph from the Python documentation into consideration:
Note that relative imports are based on the name of the current module. Since the name of the main module is always "main", modules intended for use as the main module of a Python application must always use absolute imports.
And also the following from PEP 328:
Relative imports use a module's name attribute to determine that module's position in the package hierarchy. If the module's name does not contain any package information (e.g. it is set to 'main') then relative imports are resolved as if the module were a top level module, regardless of where the module is actually located on the file system.
Relative imports work from the filename (__name__
attribute), which can take two values:
package.test_A.test
Here Python knows the parent directories: before test
comes test_A
and then package
.
So you can use the dot notation for relative import.# package.test_A/test.py
from ..A import foo
You can then have like a root file in the root directory which calls test.py
:
# root.py
from package.test_A import test
test.py
) directly, it becomes the entry point to the program , so __name__
== __main__
. The filename has no indication of the directory structure, so Python doesn't know how to go up in the directory. For Python, test.py
becomes the top-level script, there is nothing above it. That's why you cannot use relative import.A) One way to solve this is to have a root file (in the root directory) which calls the modules/packages, like this:
root.py
imports test.py
. (entry point, __name__ == __main__
).test.py
(relative) imports foo.py
.foo.py
says the module has been imported.The output is:
package.A.foo has been imported
Module's name is: package.test_A.test
B) If you want to execute the code as a module and not as a top-level script, you can try this from the command line:
python -m package.test_A.test
Any suggestions are welcomed.
You should also check: Relative imports for the billionth time , specially BrenBarn's answer.
Not sure in python 2.x but in python 3.6, assuming you are trying to run the whole suite, you just have to use -t
-t, --top-level-directory directory Top level directory of project (defaults to start directory)
So, on a structure like
project_root
|
|----- my_module
| \
| \_____ my_class.py
|
\ tests
\___ test_my_func.py
One could for example use:
python3 unittest discover -s /full_path/project_root/tests -t /full_path/project_root/
And still import the my_module.my_class
without major dramas.
In my humble opinion, I understand this question in this way:
[CASE 1] When you start an absolute-import like
python -m test_A.test
or
import test_A.test
or
from test_A import test
you're actually setting the import-anchor to be test_A
, in other word, top-level package is test_A
. So, when we have test.py do from ..A import xxx
, you are escaping from the anchor, and Python does not allow this.
[CASE 2] When you do
python -m package.test_A.test
or
from package.test_A import test
your anchor becomes package
, so package/test_A/test.py
doing from ..A import xxx
does not escape the anchor(still inside package
folder), and Python happily accepts this.
In short:
Furthermore, we can use full-qualified module name(FQMN) to inspect this problem.
Check FQMN in each case:
test.__name__
= package.test_A.test
test.__name__
= test_A.test
So, for CASE2, an from .. import xxx
will result in a new module with FQMN=package.xxx
, which is acceptable.
While for CASE1, the ..
from within from .. import xxx
will jump out of the starting node(anchor) of test_A
, and this is NOT allowed by Python.
Assumption:
If you are in the package
directory, A
and test_A
are separate packages.
Conclusion:
..A
imports are only allowed within a package.
Further notes:
Making the relative imports only available within packages is useful if you want to force that packages can be placed on any path located on sys.path
.
EDIT:
Am I the only one who thinks that this is insane!? Why in the world is the current working directory not considered to be a package? – Multihunter
The current working directory is usually located in sys.path. So, all files there are importable. This is behavior since Python 2 when packages did not yet exist. Making the running directory a package would allow imports of modules as "import .A" and as "import A" which then would be two different modules. Maybe this is an inconsistency to consider.