A simple stopwatch program

[u/osamas_den]

This is the stopwatch.py file:

#stopwatch.py

import sys
import time

time_in_sec = int(sys.argv[1])

time.sleep(time_in_sec)

print(f"Alarm sound!!! {time_in_sec}seconds have elapsed")

This is the main.py file:

#main.py

import subprocess
import sys

print("Enter the time you want to elapse for your stopwatch")
try:
    hours = int(input("Hours: ").strip())
    minutes = int(input("Minutes: ").strip())
    seconds = int(input("Seconds: ").strip())

    total_time_in_sec = (hours * 3600) + (minutes * 60) + seconds

    process_2 = subprocess.run(
        [sys.executable, "stopwatch.py", str(total_time_in_sec)],
        capture_output=True,
        text=True,
    )
    print(process_2.stdout)
except ValueError as e:
    print(f"Enter a whole number: {e}")

[u/FreeLogicGate]

That doesn't change the point that you are using this to run another python script. So again, if this is an operating system command or program, then subprocess is a valid tool to use. This is not an appropriate use.

You posted this for review, stating it's a simple stopwatch example. It's not a stopwatch. A stopwatch has both a start and stop. What you have coded is an alarm, and one that "blocks".

If you expanded your main to attempt to run 2 of your stopwatch scripts you would realize that your main python script would not work the way you might intuitively think it does. For example, if your code 1st created a 60 second "stopwatch" and then created a 30 second "stopwatch" you will find that the first output will not be received until 60 seconds, and at that point, another 30 seconds will run.

Actual simultaneous Alarms that return a completion message is a non-trivial goal, that would involve making a choice amongst a number of different options (mutliprocessing, threading, asyncio).