We Keep Coding

What is an alternative to using `__getattr__()` method for wrapper classes?

Suppose that I have two classes:
a class named Swimmer
a class named Person
For my particular application, we can NOT have Swimmer inherit from Person, although we want something like inheritance.
Instead of class inheritance each Swimmer will have an instance of the Person class as a member variable.
class Person:
pass
class Swimmer:
def __init__(self, person):
self._person = person
def __getattr__(self, attrname:str):
try:
attr = getattr(self._person)
return attr
except AttributeError:
raise AttributeError
Perhaps the Person class has the following class methods:
kneel()
crawl()
walk()
lean_over()
lay_down()
The Swimmer class has all of the same methods as the Person class, plus some additional methods:
run()
swim()
dive()
throw_ball()
When it comes to kneeling, crawling, walking, and laying down, a Swimmer is meant to be a transparent wrapper around the Person class.
I want to write something like this:
swimmer_instance = SwimmerClass(person_instance)
I wrote a __getattr__() method.
However, I ran into many headaches with __getattr__().
Consider writing the code self.oops. There is no attribute of the _Swimmer class named oops. We should not look for oops inside of self._person.
Aanytime that I mistyped the name of an attribute of Swimmer, my computer searched for that attribute in the instance of the Person class. Normally, fixing such spelling mistakes is easy. But, with a __getattr__() method, tracking down the problem becomes difficult.
How can I avoid this problem?
Perhaps one option is create a sub-class of the Swimmer class. In the sub-class have have a method, the name of which is a misspelling of __getattr__. However, I am not sure about this idea; please advise me.
class _Swimmer:
def __init__(self, person):
self._person = person
def run(self):
return "I ran"
def swim(self):
return "I swam"
def dive(self):
# SHOULD NOT LOOK FOR `oops` inside of self._person!
self.oops
return "I dove"
def _getattrimp(self, attrname:str):
# MISSPELLING OF `__getattr__`
try:
attr = getattr(self._person)
return attr
except AttributeError:
raise AttributeError
class Swimmer(_Swimmer):
def __getattr__(self, attrname:str):
attr = self._getattrimp(attrname)
return attr
Really, it is important to me that we not look inside of self._person for anything except the following:
Kneel()
Crawl()
Walk()
Lean()
LayDown()
The solution must be more general than just something what works for the Swimmer class and Person class.
How do we write a function which accepts any class as input and pops out a class which has methods of the same name as the input class?
We can get a list of Person attributes by writing person_attributes = dir(Person).
Is it appropriate to dynamically create a sub-class of Swimmer which takes Person as input?
class Person:
def kneel(self, *args, **kwargs):
return "I KNEELED"
def crawl(self, *args, **kwargs):
return "I crawled"
def walk(self, *args, **kwargs):
return "I WALKED"
def lean_over(self, *args, **kwargs):
return "I leaned over"
################################################################
import functools
class TransparentMethod:
def __init__(self, mthd):
self._mthd = mthd
#classmethod
def make_transparent_method(cls, old_method):
new_method = cls(old_method)
new_method = functools.wraps(old_method)
return new_method
def __call__(self, *args, **kwargs):
ret_val = self._mthd(*args, **kwargs)
return ret_val
###############################################################
attributes = dict.fromkeys(dir(Person))
for attr_name in attributes.keys():
old_attr = getattr(Person, attr_name)
new_attr = TransparentMethod.make_transparent_method(old_attr)
name = "_Swimmer"
bases = (object, )
_Swimmer = type(name, bases, attributes)
  
class Swimmer(_Swimmer):
pass

If I understand your question correctly, you want a function that will combine two classes into one.
The way I did this was to create a blank container class with the 3 parameter type() constructor, then loop over every class passed to the function, using setattr to set new attributes of the container class. I had to blacklist the __class__ and __dict__ attributes because Python doesn't allow one to change these. Note that this function will overwrite previously added methods, such as the __init__() method, so pass the class with the constructor last.
I implemented this in the combineClasses function below. I also provided an example. In the example, I created the a basic Person class and a _Swimmer class. I called combineClasses on these two and stored the resulting class as Swimmer, so it can nicely be called as a wrapper class.
def combineClasses(name, *args):
container = type(name, (object,), {})
reserved = ['__class__', '__dict__']
for arg in args:
for method in dir(arg):
if method not in reserved:
setattr(container, method, getattr(arg, method))
return container
class Person:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def sayHi(self):
print(f'Hi, I am {self.name}')
class _Swimmer:
def swim(self):
print('I am swimming')
class _Cashier:
def work(self):
print(f'I am working! My name is {self.name}')
Swimmer = combineClasses('Swimmer', _Swimmer, Person)
bob = Swimmer('Bob')
bob.swim() # => "I am swimming"
bob.sayHi() # => "Hi, I am Bob"
print(bob.name) # => "Bob"
print(type(bob)) # => "<class '__main__.Swimmer'>"

Can I refactor this simple callback pattern that uses the property decorator?

I'm just getting to grips with decorators in Python and using them to add callbacks to some instance variables using the following simple pattern:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self._var = 0
self.var_callbacks = []
#property
def var(self):
return self._var
#var.setter
def var(self, x):
self._var = x
for f in self.var_callbacks:
f(x)
The property decorator is a neat way of allowing me to introduce callbacks where necessary without changing the class interface. However, after the third or fourth variable it's making the code a bit repetitive.
Is there a way to refactor this pattern into something along the following:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.var = 0
enable_callback(self, 'var', 'var_callbacks')

You'll need to set the property on the class (since it is a descriptor), so using a enable_callback call in the initializer is not going to work.
You could use a class decorator to set the properties from a pattern:
def callback_properties(callbacks_attribute, *names):
def create_callback_property(name):
def getter(self):
return getattr(self, '_' + name)
def setter(self, value):
setattr(self, '_' + name, value)
for f in getattr(self, callbacks_attribute):
f(value)
return property(getter, setter)
def add_callback_properties(cls):
for name in names:
setattr(cls, name, create_callback_property(name)
return cls
return add_callback_properties
Then use that as:
#add_callback_properties('var_callbacks', 'var1', 'var2')
class A(object):
# everything else

Have a look at the Python descriptor protocol. In essence, you can define a class that handles the getting, setting and deleting of a property. So you could define a descriptor that runs your callbacks on setting the attribute.
Descriptors are regular classes, and can be parameterized. So you could implement a descriptor that takes the destination variable its constructor. Something like the following:
class A(object):
var = CallbackDescriptor('var')
foo = CallbackDescriptor('foo')

Creating objects from static properties in python

I have a Category class which has different names for each categories, the names of the categories can be unknown, good and bad, all categories share the same behavior so i don't want to create sub classes for each type of category, the problem comes when i am trying to
create the different categories in this way:
Category.GOOD
This statement should return a category object with his name setting to 'good' so i try
the following:
class Category(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
#property
def GOOD(self):
category = Category(name='good')
return category
#property
def BAD(self):
category = Category(name='bad')
return category
Then i created and use the category with the following output:
c = Category.GOOD
c.name
AttributeError: 'property' object has no attribute 'name'
Realizing that this doesn't work i try a java like approach:
class Category(object):
GOOD = Category(name='good')
BAD = Category(name='bad')
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
What i get here is a undefined name "Category" error, so my question is if there is a pythonic way to create a category object like this.

You probably want to use classmethods:
class Category(object):
#classmethod
def GOOD(cls):
category = cls(name='GOOD')
return category
Now you can do c = Category.GOOD().

You cannot do this with a property; you either have to use a classmethod, or create your own descriptor for that:
class classproperty(property):
def __get__(self, inst, cls):
return self.fget(cls)
I'm abusing the property decorator here; it implements __set__ and __del__ as well, but we can just ignore those here for convenience sake.
Then use that instead of property:
class Category(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
#classproperty
def GOOD(cls):
return cls(name='good')
#classproperty
def BAD(cls):
return cls(name='bad')
Now accessing Category.GOOD works:
>>> Category.GOOD
<__main__.Category object at 0x10f49df50>
>>> Category.GOOD.name
'good'

I'd use module variables for this. Consider you have the module category.py:
class Category(object):
# stuff...
now you put the two global objects in it:
GOOD = Category(name='good')
BAD = Category(name='bad')
You can use it like that:
from path.to.category import GOOD, BAD
I don't say that this is pythonic but I think this approach is elegant.

The main point that you could not use class definition inside that class definition itself. So the most straight way to achieve what you are want is to use class/static methods as shown below, or even package constants.
class Category(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
#classmethod
def GOOD(cls):
return Category(name='good')
#classmethod
def BAD(cls):
return Category(name='bad')
print Category.GOOD().name
or
class Category(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
#staticmethod
def GOOD():
return Category(name='good')
#staticmethod
def BAD():
return Category(name='bad')
print Category.GOOD().name

Access the class type when constructing a class attribute in python?

I'd like to do this:
class MyThing(object):
def __init__(self,owning_cls):
self.owning_cls = owning_cls
class MyClass(object):
thing = MyThing(self.__class__)
print MyClass.thing.owning_cls
This doesn't work - as there isn't a self to refer to in the class construction of MyClass.
Is there any way to achieve this (it's clearly trivial if we make thing an instance attribute, but I'd like to be a class attribute please!)?

Perform the call immediately after the class declaration:
class MyClass(object): pass
MyClass.thing = MyThing(MyClass)

Use a decorator. I find this to be a clean solution because it lets you keep more of the class definition together, rather than having to write additional class-related code after the class definition or forcing you to instantiate MyClass, etc.
class MyThing(object):
def __init__(self,owning_cls):
self.owning_cls = owning_cls
def set_thing(cls):
cls.thing = MyThing(cls)
return cls
#set_thing
class MyClass(object):
pass
>>> print MyClass.thing.owner_cls
<class '__main__.MyClass'>

Maybe you can initialize the class with __new__?

Use desciptor:
class Ownable(object):
def __init__(self, clz):
self._clz = clz
self._inst = None
def __get__(self, inst, owner_clz):
self._inst = self._inst or self._clz(owner_clz)
return self._inst
class MyThing(object):
def __init__(self, owner_clz):
self.owner_clz = owner_clz
class MyClass(object):
thing = Ownable(MyThing)
>>> print MyClass.thing.owner_clz
<class '__main__.MyClass'>

Ah, the use MetaClasses comment helps a lot here.
This looks like an "easy" way to achieve exactly what I want
class MyClassMetaclass(type):
def __new__(cls, name, bases, dct):
cls.thing = MyThing(name)
return super(MyClassMetaclass, cls).__new__(cls, name, bases, dct)
class MyThing(object):
def __init__(self,owning_cls):
self.owning_cls = owning_cls
class MyClass(object):
__metaclass__=MyClassMetaclass
print MyClass.thing.owning_cls

Python: How to register all child classes with the father class upon creation

I have python class trees, each made up of an abstract base class and many deriving concrete classes. I want all concrete classes to be accessible through a base-class method, and I do not want to specify anything during child-class creation.
This is what my imagined solution looks like:
class BaseClassA(object):
# <some magic code around here>
#classmethod
def getConcreteClasses(cls):
# <some magic related code here>
class ConcreteClassA1(BaseClassA):
# no magic-related code here
class ConcreteClassA2(BaseClassA):
# no magic-related code here
As much as possible, I'd prefer to write the "magic" once as a sort of design pattern. I want to be able to apply it to different class trees in different scenarios (i.e. add a similar tree with "BaseClassB" and its concrete classes).
Thanks Internet!

you can use meta classes for that:
class AutoRegister(type):
def __new__(mcs, name, bases, classdict):
new_cls = type.__new__(mcs, name, bases, classdict)
#print mcs, name, bases, classdict
for b in bases:
if hasattr(b, 'register_subclass'):
b.register_subclass(new_cls)
return new_cls
class AbstractClassA(object):
__metaclass__ = AutoRegister
_subclasses = []
#classmethod
def register_subclass(klass, cls):
klass._subclasses.append(cls)
#classmethod
def get_concrete_classes(klass):
return klass._subclasses
class ConcreteClassA1(AbstractClassA):
pass
class ConcreteClassA2(AbstractClassA):
pass
class ConcreteClassA3(ConcreteClassA2):
pass
print AbstractClassA.get_concrete_classes()
I'm personnaly very wary of this kind of magic. Don't put too much of this in your code.

Here is a simple solution using modern python's (3.6+) __init__subclass__ defined in PEP 487. It allows you to avoid using a meta-class.
class BaseClassA(object):
_subclasses = []
#classmethod
def get_concrete_classes(cls):
return list(cls._subclasses)
def __init_subclass__(cls):
BaseClassA._subclasses.append(cls)
class ConcreteClassA1(BaseClassA):
pass # no magic-related code here
class ConcreteClassA2(BaseClassA):
pass # no magic-related code here
print(BaseClassA.get_concrete_classes())

You should know that part of the answer you're looking for is built-in. New-style classes automatically keep a weak reference to all of their child classes which can be accessed with the __subclasses__ method:
#classmethod
def getConcreteClasses(cls):
return cls.__subclasses__()
This won't return sub-sub-classes. If you need those, you can create a recursive generator to get them all:
#classmethod
def getConcreteClasses(cls):
for c in cls.__subclasses__():
yield c
for c2 in c.getConcreteClasses():
yield c2

Another way to do this, with a decorator, if your subclasses are either not defining __init__ or are calling their parent's __init__:
def lister(cls):
cls.classes = list()
cls._init = cls.__init__
def init(self, *args, **kwargs):
cls = self.__class__
if cls not in cls.classes:
cls.classes.append(cls)
cls._init(self, *args, **kwargs)
cls.__init__ = init
#classmethod
def getclasses(cls):
return cls.classes
cls.getclasses = getclasses
return cls
#lister
class A(object): pass
class B(A): pass
class C(A):
def __init__(self):
super(C, self).__init__()
b = B()
c = C()
c2 = C()
print 'Classes:', c.getclasses()
It will work whether or not the base class defines __init__.