I have a class that has an attribute as an object from another class. A third class inherits from the first class, and in there, I want to override the attribute's method ...
class Car:
def __init__(self, door):
self.door = door
class Door:
def __init__(self, color):
self.color = color
def change_color(self):
pass
class CarConstruct(Car):
def __init__(self):
super(CarConstruct, self).__init__(Door('red'))
# Here, I want to override self.door.change_color method
What is the best way to override in such a situation?
This technique is called "monkey patching". In general it should be avoided, because it makes the code very hard to understand and reason about. Avoid it unless you have a very good cause. One of the good causes might be to mock a method in unit tests.
If you still want to monkey patch just one method on one object self.door - check out this answer.
Related
I'm trying to create a base class with a number of abstract python properties, in python 3.7.
I tried it one way (see 'start' below) using the #property, #abstractmethod, #property.setter annotations. This worked but it doesn't raise an exception if the subclass doesn't implement a setter. That's the point of using #abstract to me, so that's no good.
So I tried doing it another way (see 'end' below) using two #abstractmethod methods and a 'property()', which is not abstract itself but uses those methods. This approach generates an error when instantiating the subclass:
# {TypeError}Can't instantiate abstract class FirstStep with abstract methods end
I'm clearly implementing the abstract methods, so I don't understand what it means. The 'end' property is not marked #abstract, but if I comment it out, it does run (but I don't get my property). I also added that test non-abstract method 'test_elapsed_time' to demonstrate I have the class structure and abstraction right (it works).
Any chance I'm doing something dumb, or is there some special behavior around property() that's causing this?
class ParentTask(Task):
def get_first_step(self):
# {TypeError}Can't instantiate abstract class FirstStep with abstract methods end
return FirstStep(self)
class Step(ABC):
# __metaclass__ = ABCMeta
def __init__(self, task):
self.task = task
# First approach. Works, but no warnings if don't implement setter in subclass
#property
#abstractmethod
def start(self):
pass
#start.setter
#abstractmethod
def start(self, value):
pass
# Second approach. "This method for 'end' may look slight messier, but raises errors if not implemented.
#abstractmethod
def get_end(self):
pass
#abstractmethod
def set_end(self, value):
pass
end = property(get_end, set_end)
def test_elapsed_time(self):
return self.get_end() - self.start
class FirstStep(Step):
#property
def start(self):
return self.task.start_dt
# No warnings if this is commented out.
#start.setter
def start(self, value):
self.task.start_dt = value
def get_end(self):
return self.task.end_dt
def set_end(self, value):
self.task.end_dt = value
I suspect this is a bug in the interaction of abstract methods and properties.
In your base class, the following things happen, in order:
You define an abstract method named start.
You create a new property that uses the abstract method from 1) as its getter. The name start now refers to this property, with the only reference to the original name now held by Self.start.fget.
Python saves a temporary reference to start.setter, because the name start is about to be bound to yet another object.
You create a second abstract method named start
The reference from 3) is given the abstract method from 4) to define a new property to replace the once currently bound to the name start. This property has as its getter the method from 1 and as its setter the method from 4). Now start refers to this property; start.fget refers to the method from 1); start.fset refers to the method from 4).
At this point, you have a property, whose component functions are abstract methods. The property itself was not decorated as abstract, but the definition of property.__isabstractmethod__ marks it as such because all its component methods are abstract. More importantly, you have the following entries in Step.__abstractmethods__:
start, the property
end, the property
set_end, the setter for end
gen_end, the getter for end
Note that the component functions for the start property are missing, because __abstractmethods__ stores names of, not references to, things that need to be overriden. Using property and the resulting property's setter method as decorators repeatedly replace what the name start refers to.
Now, in your child class, you define a new property named start, shadowing the inherited property, which has no setter and a concrete method as its getter. At this point, it doesn't matter if you provide a setter for this property or not, because as far as the abc machinery is concerned, you have provided everything it asked for:
A concrete method for the name start
Concrete methods for the names get_end and set_end
Implicitly a concrete definition for the name end, because all of the underlying functions for the property end have been provided concrete definitions.
#chepner answered and explained it well. Based on that, I came up with a way around it that is... well... you decide. Sneaky at best. But it achieves my 3 main goals:
Raises exceptions for unimplemented setters in subclasses
Supports the python property semantics (vs. functions etc)
Avoids boilerplate re-declaring every property in every subclass which still might not have solved #1 anyway.
Just declare the abstract get/set functions in the base class (not the property). Then add a #classmethod initializer to the base class that creates the actual properties using those abstract methods, but at that point, they'll be concrete methods on the subclass.
It's a one liner after the subclass declaration to init the properties. Nothing enforces that call being made, so it's not ironclad. Not a big savings in this example, but I'll have many properties. The end results doesn't look as dirty as I thought it would. Would like to hear comments or warnings of things I'm overlooking.
from abc import abstractmethod, ABC
class ParentTask(object):
def __init__(self):
self.first_step = FirstStep(self)
self.second_step = SecondStep(self)
print(self.first_step.end)
print(self.second_step.end)
class Step(ABC):
def __init__(self, task):
self.task = task
#classmethod
def init_properties(cls):
cls.end = property(cls.get_end, cls.set_end)
#abstractmethod
def get_end(self):
pass
#abstractmethod
def set_end(self, value):
pass
class FirstStep(Step):
def get_end(self):
return 1
def set_end(self, value):
self.task.end = value
class SecondStep(Step):
def get_end(self):
return 2
def set_end(self, value):
self.task.end = value
FirstStep.init_properties()
SecondStep.init_properties()
ParentTask()
According to Python docs super()
is useful for accessing inherited methods that have been overridden in
a class.
I understand that super refers to the parent class and it lets you access parent methods. My question is why do people always use super inside the init method of the child class? I have seen it everywhere. For example:
class Person:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
class Employee(Person):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
super().__init__(name=kwargs['name']) # Here super is being used
def first_letter(self):
return self.name[0]
e = Employee(name="John")
print(e.first_letter())
I can accomplish the same without super and without even an init method:
class Person:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
class Employee(Person):
def first_letter(self):
return self.name[0]
e = Employee(name="John")
print(e.first_letter())
Are there drawbacks with the latter code? It looks so much cleanr to me. I don't even have to use the boilerplate **kwargs and kwargs['argument'] syntax.
I am using Python 3.8.
Edit: Here's another stackoverflow questions which has code from different people who are using super in the child's init method. I don't understand why. My best guess is there's something new in Python 3.8.
The child might want to do something different or more likely additional to what the super class does - in this case the child must have an __init__.
Calling super’s init means that you don’t have to copy/paste (with all the implications for maintenance) that init in the child’s class, which otherwise would be needed if you wanted some additional code in the child init.
But note there are complications about using super’s init if you use multiple inheritance (e.g. which super gets called) and this needs care. Personally I avoid multiple inheritance and keep inheritance to aminimum anyway - it’s easy to get tempted into creating multiple levels of inheritance/class hierarchy but my experience is that a ‘keep it simple’ approach is usually much better.
The potential drawback to the latter code is that there is no __init__ method within the Employee class. Since there is none, the __init__ method of the parent class is called. However, as soon as an __init__ method is added to the Employee class (maybe there's some Employee-specific attribute that needs to be initialized, like an id_number) then the __init__ method of the parent class is overridden and not called (unless super.__init__() is called) and then an Employee will not have a name attribute.
The correct way to use super here is for both methods to use super. You cannot assume that Person is the last (or at least, next-to-last, before object) class in the MRO.
class Person:
def __init__(self, name, **kwargs):
super().__init__(**kwargs)
self.name = name
class Employee(Person):
# Optional, since Employee.__init__ does nothing
# except pass the exact same arguments "upstream"
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
super().__init__(**kwargs)
def first_letter(self):
return self.name[0]
Consider a class definition like
class Bar:
...
class Foo(Person, Bar):
...
The MRO for Foo looks like [Foo, Person, Bar, object]; the call to super().__init__ inside Person.__init__ would call Bar.__init__, not object.__init__, and Person has no way of knowing if values in **kwargs are meant for Bar, so it must pass them on.
I am developing a system, which has a series of single multilevel inheritance hierarachy. one of the methods (applicable to all the classes) has to perform the same thing for most of the classes, which is to pass a list to its parent class.
I know that if one doesn't define a method in one of the inherited classes, its parents' methods are used. But when we use the super method, we need to mention the name of the class being called.
One method I know to achieve this is to redefine the method at every class with class name as argument. Is there any elegant method where I can define it once at the topmost parent, and then override it only when necessary?
The implementation right now looks like this
class a(object):
def __init__(self):
self.myL = list()
print 'hello'
class b(a):
def __init__(self):
super(b,self).__init__()
def resolve(self, passVal):
print passVal
self.myL.append(passVal)
super(b,self).resolve(passVal+1)
class c(b):
def __init__(self):
super(c,self).__init__()
def resolve(self, passVal):
print passVal
self.myL.append(passVal)
super(c,self).resolve(passVal+1)
Instead if I can define resolve in class a, and then all other classes inherit the method from it. I understand a will never be able to use it. but redefining the method seems a lot unnecessary extra work.
The title is pretty much self explanatory, but I think this is better explained with an example.
class Dog():
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def get_name(self):
return self.name
def get_color(self):
return body_color()
class personality_1():
def get_happiness(self):
return happiness_with_owner()
def get_sadness(self):
return sadness()
## A lot more personality methods here
class SocialDog(Dog):
# Override regular method
def get_color(self):
return face_color()
# I want to override the personality 1 class but not completely, just one method
class personality_2(>>>How to inherit from personality_1?<<<):
# Now, I would like to override just one method of personality 1:
def get_happiness(self):
return happiness_with_others()
Hopefully the logic is correct. I was trying to use super() with no success. Hopefully I can find a solution without using an explicit call to the parent class.
Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance!
To inherit from the class you specified, according to the code you provided, all that is required is to define the class personality_2 like this:
class SocialDog(Dog):
#...
class personality_2(Dog.personality_1):
#...
Now, as for your problem when trying to use super(), this might be because your base classes of Dog and Dog.personality_1 do not inherit from the python default class object which is required in order to use the super() method. See this answer for details. If that is what you are after, all you need to do is modify your class declarations for Dog and Dog.personality_1 (or whatever they ultimately derive from) to the following:
class Dog(object):
#...
class personality_1(object):
#...
Then you can treat SocialDog.personality_2 just like any other subclass. If you are using python 2, remember when using super() that you need to use the fully qualified name:
super(SocialDog.personality_2, self).super_class_method()
super(SocialDog.personality_2, self).super_class_field
Use the name of the outer class to reach the inner class:
class SocialDog(Dog):
class personality_2(Dog.personality_1):
# ...
That said, this is a very weird thing you're doing, hiding the personality classes inside the dog classes, then using them outside...
If a personality is that tightly coupled to a specific class like Dog or SocialDog, what makes personality_2 think it's safe to mess with the behaviour of personality_1? In fact, the personality methods should probably be Dog or SocialDog methods instead.
Or, if it doesn't really matter which dog gets which personality, why not leave the personality classes up at the module level, where they can be instantiated and inherited like any other class? Your various Dog-derived classes would then take an optional personality argument when created:
class WolfPersonality(DogPersonality):
# ...
class Wolf(Dog):
def __init__(self, personality=None):
if personality is None:
personality = WolfPersonality()
self.personality = personality
# ...
# Later...
wolf = Wolf()
wolf_puppy = Wolf(FriendlyDogPersonality())
I know there are a bunch of similar questions out there. But my question is different.
I don't want to make a method which can't be overridden.
I want to protect my newly created class to not accidentally override something.
Using underscore as a prefix is pretty good, but soon I'll get a lot of methods with a lot of underscores. and somewhere in my inherited class, I will override the grand-ancestor's class method.
What I really want is something as simple as this:
class Cat(Mammal):
def walk(self):
if ancestor_has_function('walk'):
parent.walk();
do_something_here();
If any of Cat's ancestor (Either it is Mammal, Animal, or LifeForm) has "walk" method, then the parent method should be executed first.
Is that any possibility to do this in python?
EDIT:
For instance this is the resume of answers I considered as good. Hope this will help others:
class Animal(object):
pass
#def walk(self):
# print('animal walk')
class Mammal(Animal):
def walk(self):
if hasattr(super(Mammal, self), 'walk') and callable(super(Mammal,self).walk):
super(Mammal, self).walk()
print('mammal walk')
class Cat(Mammal):
def walk(self):
super(Cat, self).walk()
print('cat walk')
if __name__ == '__main__':
cat = Cat()
cat.walk()
And here is the output:
mammal walk
cat walk
Try to uncomment Animal's walk method, and you will have it work as well too.
Generally speaking, you'll probably want to provide at least a stub method in whichever superclass is the most generic:
class Mammal(object):
def walk(self):
pass
Then, extend it in subclasses by calling super():
class Cat(Mammal):
def walk(self):
super(Cat, self).walk() # or just super().walk(), in Python 3+
do_something_here()
Making the super() call conditional is not hard, but it's probably a bad idea: it's verbose, fragile, and only encourages bad practices. If you really, really have good reason to do it, you can just use hasattr() on the super object, like you would with any other object:
class Cat(Mammal):
def walk(self):
if hasattr(super(Cat, self), 'walk'):
super(Cat, self).walk()
do_something_here()
You would only want to do this in unusual situations, though, such as subclassing classes from a third-party library where you can't rely on certain methods being present, for some reason.
Yep. hasattr checks if there is an attribute with a specific name.
and callable checks if the specific attribute is callable.
class Mammal(object):
def walk(self):
print "walking"
class Cat(Mammal):
def walk(self):
if hasattr(Mammal,'walk') and callable(Mammal.walk):
Mammal.walk(self);
print "another walking!"
and now:
>>> my_cat = Cat()
>>> my_cat.walk()
walking
another walking!
Note that you can also use super to get your parent class like that:
if hasattr(super(Cat, self),'walk'):
You can use the dir() function to get all the names declared for some module or class. Methods declared in classes higher up in the hierarchy will also be included. Note, however, that this will also include attributes, so check with callable() first.
Also, calling the parent method looks a bit different in python, see the code below.
def walk(self):
if "walk" in dir(Mammal) and callable(Mammal.walk):
Mammal.walk(self)
# do something
you can keep your original method in a field
class MyClass:
def __method(self):
pass
def __init__(self):
self.method = __method
and than check for identity and call the saved method
import inspect
class SomeClass():
def __init__(self):
...
def somefunc(self):
....
def someOtherFunc(self):
....
allmembers = inspect.getmembers(SomeClass, predicate=inspect.ismethod)
getmembers returns a list of all methods define within the given class, it is a list of tuples that contains method names and definitions:
[('__init__', <unbound method SomeClass.__init__>),
('somefunc', <unbound method SomeClass.somefunc>),
('someOtherFunc', <unbound method SomeClass.someOtherFunc>)]
Since first elements of the tuple are strings, you can use string based methods to filter base methods like __init__
allmembers = filter(lambda x: not x.startswith('__'), [x[0] for x in inspect.getmembers(SomeClass, predicate=inspect.ismethod))])
[('somefunc', <unbound method SomeClass.somefunc>),
('someOtherFunc', <unbound method SomeClass.someOtherFunc>)]
You can get a list of all methods defined within the class and check if you have a similarly named method, Sincegetmembers returns you an unbound method instance, you can also reach that function easily.