I'm trying to create task management system. (an app where somebody can create a task and set up a deadline date and get notifications). At first i will create console app and then web using django.
I already created a database.(sqlite)
I don't know how my entities are going to communicate.
First one approach:
class User():
def __init__(self):
self.UserID
self.UserName
self.PassHash
# salt, Full name and etc.
class Task():
def __init__(self):
self.TaskID
self.UserID
self.Name
#smth subtasks, date and etc.
class UserService():
def __init__(UserID, TaskID):
User = db.GetById(UserID)
TasksList = db.GetUserTasks(UserID)
def addTask():
..
def removeTask():
..
def ChangePassword():
..
def ChangeUserName():
..
The last one class will contains all business logic and communication between Tasks and User classes. First ones - pure classes without any methods.
Another one approach:
class User():
def __init__(self):
self.UserID #
self.UserName
self.PassHash # 3 fields will be set up by db. The last one - on #runtime
self.TasksList = None
def ChangePassword():
..
def GetTasks():
TaskList = db.GetUserTasks(UserID)
class Task()
def __init__(self):
self.TaskID
self.UserID
self.Name
self.SubTask
#smth else
def AddSubTask():
..
Thanks in advance
Classes should define objects of which you can have one or more instances of. That is for example users or tasks. I do not think that classes in object programming are supposed to encompass raw functionality, for that you just use functions...
With that in mind I would go with the first approach.
Classes should be classes and functions should be functions - Me
I'd go with the first option because it's more readable and the structure is clearer.
Related
Currently in a situation where I have a series of classes that turn an API request JSON into objects. The objects are modeled after my database schema. I think the part that I'm struggling with is how to represent those entity relationships that are formed with foreign keys in my database.
The following classes are just for an example, the instance variables are much different for my application's schema.
class Table(ABC):
def __init__(self):
# stuff
#abstractmethod
def validateSchema(self):
"""Validates the resources column values."""
pass
class ClassRoom(Table):
def __init__(self, id, location_id, location):
super().__init__()
self.id = id
self.location = Location(location_id, location)
def validateSchema(self):
# stuff
class Location(Table):
def __init__(self, id, location):
super().__init__()
self.id = id
self.location = location
def validateSchema(self):
# stuff
The part I'm concerned about is when I am creating an object of the same type as the class that has the object as an instance variable.
class ClassRoom(Table):
def __init__(self, id, location_id, location):
# Can I instantiate this class even if it inherits the same parent?
self.location = Location(location_id, location)
Is this ok in OOP? Is there a better way to design my classes?
Also, these classes are just defined for the request JSONs that get sent to my API. Their purpose will be to facilitate column validation and a few other purposes. The specific validation I am hoping to implement in these classes comes from this other Stackoverflow post Flask sqlAlchemy validation issue with flask_Marshmallow. I'm not trying to recreate SqlAlchemy here.
Your Table class is analogous to SqlAlchemy's db.Model class. And just as it can have references between different subclasses, so can you.
The specific design of your Classroom.__init__() method seems wrong. All the classrooms in the same location should have references to the same Location object, but you create a new one for each classroom. The Location should be a parameter, rather than the location ID and name.
class ClassRoom(Table):
def __init__(self, id, location):
super().__init__()
self.id = id
self.location = location
Then you can create multiple classrooms in a location:
loc = Location(loc_id, loc_name)
c1 = Classroom(c1_id, loc)
c2 = Classroom(c2_id, loc)
I have checked lots of websites and almost all questions related to the same on Stackoverflow. I cant find the solution to this problem. Its very important for a project. Please help. I want to use the variable self.email in Class A in the function email(self) in Class B. I've tried several things, but its not working. Inheritance wont work because its a kivy-python code and its already inheriting classes like GridLayout().
Class A:
def __init__(self):
---some code---
def email_id(self):
self.email = x
Class B:
def __init__(self):
print(A().email)
I think what you might be looking for are property decorators
Class A:
def __init__(self):
---some code---
#property
def email(self):
return (some code to show the email)
The field email of class A is created when email_id() is called.
Therefore, by the time print(A().email) is executed, this field is still not set.
You can set it first
Class B:
def __init__(self):
a = A()
a.email_id("email")
print(a.email)
I'm writing a wrapper for the GMAIL API. In this wrapper, I am trying to include subattributes in the "main class" so it more closely follows the below:
Previously, I was use methods such as:
class Foo:
def __init__(self, ...):
# add some attributes
def get_method(self, ...):
return some_stuff
This allows me to do foo.get_method(...). To follow the GMAIL API, I try to do:
class Foo:
def __init__(self, ...):
# add some attributes
#property
def method(self):
class _Method:
#staticmethod
def get(self, ...):
return some_stuff
return _Method()
Which allows me to do foo.method.get(...). The above has some problems, it redefines the class every time, and I have to add #staticmethod above every method as part of it. I do realise that I could create the class at the outer class level, and set a hidden variable for each which then .method returns or creates, but this seems like too much workaround.
tldr: Is it possible to make the instance passed to the inner class as self be the instance of the outer class (I do not wish to have to pass the attributes of the outer class to each inner class).
Instead of sharing the self parameter between classes, you are probably better off just passing the things you need to the constructor of the class you instantiate.
class Messages:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def method(self, other_arg):
return self.name + other_arg
class Test:
name = "hi"
def __init__(self):
self.messages = Messages(name=self.name)
If you need to pass a lot of information to the constructor and it starts becoming unwieldy, you can do something like split the shared code into a third class, and then pass that between the Test and Messages classes as a single object.
In Python there are all sorts of clever things that you can do with metaclasses and magic methods, but in 99% of cases just refactoring things into different classes and functions will get you more readable and maintainable code.
Users should have an instance of messages, which allows method get. The scetch for code is:
class Messages:
...
def get()
...
class Users:
...
messages = Messages(...)
allows
users = Users()
users.messages.get()
The bad thing in this API is plural names, which is a bad sign for class. If done from scratch you would rather have classes User and Message, which make more sense.
If you have a closer look at GET/POST calls in the API you link provided, you would notice the urls are like UserId/settings, another hint to implement User class, not Users.
self in the methods reference the self of the outer class
maybe this is what you want factory-method
Although the example code I'll provide bellow might be similar to the already provided answers, and the link above to another answer might satify you wish, because it is slight different formed I'll still provide my vision on what you asked. The code is self explanatory.
class User:
def __init__(self, pk, name):
self.pk = pk
self.name = name
self._messages = None
def messages(self):
if self.messages is None:
self._messages = Messages(self.pk)
return self._messages
class Messages:
def __init__(self, usr):
self.usr = usr
def get(self):
return self._grab_data()
def _grab_data(self):
# grab the data from DB
if self.usr == 1:
print('All messages of usr 1')
elif self.usr == 2:
print('All messages of usr 2')
elif self.usr == 3:
print('All messages of usr 3')
one = User(1, 'One')
two = User(2, 'Two')
three = User(3, 'Three')
one.messages().get()
two.messages().get()
three.messages().get()
The messages method approach practical would be the same for labels, history etc.
Edit: I'll give one more try to myself trying to understand what you want to achieve, even though you said that
I have tried numerous things with defining the classes outside of the container class [...]
. I don't know if you tried inheritance, since your inner class me, despite it quite don't represent nothing here, but still looks like you want to make use of its functionality somehow. You said as well
self in the methods reference the self of the outer class
This sounds to me like you want inheritance at the end.
Then the way to go would be (a proximity idea by using inheritance):
class me(object):
def __init__(self):
self.__other_arg = None # private and hidden variable
# setter and getter methods
def set_other_arg(self, new_other_arg):
self.__other_arg = new_other_arg
def get_other_arg(self):
return self.__other_arg
class Test(me):
name = 'Class Test'
#property
def message(self):
other_arg = self.get_other_arg()
if other_arg is not None:
return '{} {}'.format(self.name, other_arg)
else:
return self.name
t = Test()
t.set_other_arg('said Hello')
print(t.message)
# output >>> Class Test said Hello
I think this could be a preferable way to go rather than your inner class approach, my opinion, you'll decide. Just one side note, look up for getter and setter in python, it might help you if you want to stick with the inheritance idea given.
The app has such logic: list of people stored in the database, each man has a rating calculated in realtime and this value is never stored in database. And I want to use one class to work with dababase fields: name, age etc. and non database field: rating.
Is it possible in sqlalchemy? Now I'm using inheritance Man -> ManMapping:
class Man:
rating = None
def get_rating(self):
return self.rating
...
class ManMapping(Base, Man):
__tablename__ = 'man'
id = Column('man_id', Integer, primary_key=True)
name = Column(Unicode)
...
It works but it looks terrible for me. Is it right approach or I have to do something else?
This is the correct solution: https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/13/orm/constructors.html
Hybrid properties are somewhat less flexible that this. The accepted answer is not an actual answer to the problem.
The SQLAlchemy ORM does not call init when recreating objects from database rows. The ORM’s process is somewhat akin to the Python standard library’s pickle module, invoking the low level new method and then quietly restoring attributes directly on the instance rather than calling init.
If you need to do some setup on database-loaded instances before they’re ready to use, there is an event hook known as InstanceEvents.load() which can achieve this; it is also available via a class-specific decorator called reconstructor(). When using reconstructor(), the mapper will invoke the decorated method with no arguments every time it loads or reconstructs an instance of the class. This is useful for recreating transient properties that are normally assigned in init:
from sqlalchemy import orm
class MyMappedClass(object):
def __init__(self, data):
self.data = data
# we need stuff on all instances, but not in the database.
self.stuff = []
#orm.reconstructor
def init_on_load(self):
self.stuff = []
If you are using any data from the DB to calculate rating I would recommend looking at hybrid property. Otherwise I would add self.rating to init and have your function inside the ManMapping class. Something like:
class ManMapping(Base):
__tablename__ = 'man'
id = Column('man_id', Integer, primary_key=True)
name = Column(Unicode)
def __init__(self)
self.rating = None
def get_rating(self):
return self.rating
In my point of view, you should have two distincts classes.
One for the logic in your code and one to communicate with your DB.
class Man(object):
"""This class is for your application"""
def __init__(self, name, rating):
# If the identifier is only used by the DB it should not be in this class
self.name = name
self.rating = rating
class ManModel(Base):
"""This model is only to communicate with the DB"""
__tablename__ = 'man'
id = Column('man_id', Integer, primary_key=True)
name = Column(Unicode)
You should have a provider that does queries to DB with ManModel objects, then maps results to Man objects and return your mapped data to the caller.
Your application will only use Man objects and your provider will do the mapping.
Something like below :
class DbProvider(object):
def get_man(self, id):
man_model = session.query(ManModel).filter(ManModel.id == id).one_or_none()
return self.man_mapper(man_model) if man_model else None
def get_men(self):
men_model = session.query(ManModel).all()
return [self.man_mapper(man_model) for man_model in men_model]
def man_mapper(self, man_model):
return Man(man_model.name, self.calculate_rating(man_model))
class Test(object):
def display_man(self):
man = db_provider.get_man(15)
if man:
print man.name, man.rating
I'm using base class constructor as factory and changing class in this constructor/factory to select appropriate class -- is this approach is good python practice or there are more elegant ways?
I've tried to read help about metaclasses but without big success.
Here example of what I'm doing.
class Project(object):
"Base class and factory."
def __init__(self, url):
if is_url_local(url):
self.__class__ = ProjectLocal
else:
self.__class__ = ProjectRemote
self.url = url
class ProjectLocal(Project):
def do_something(self):
# do the stuff locally in the dir pointed by self.url
class ProjectRemote(Project):
def do_something(self):
# do the stuff communicating with remote server pointed by self.url
Having this code I can create the instance of ProjectLocal/ProjectRemote via base class Project:
project = Project('http://example.com')
project.do_something()
I know that alternate way is to using fabric function that will return the class object based on url, then code will looks similar:
def project_factory(url):
if is_url_local(url):
return ProjectLocal(url)
else:
return ProjectRemote(url)
project = project_factory(url)
project.do_something()
Is my first approach just matter of taste or it has some hidden pitfalls?
You shouldn't need metaclasses for this. Take a look at the __new__ method. This will allow you to take control of the creation of the object, rather than just the initialisation, and so return an object of your choosing.
class Project(object):
"Base class and factory."
def __new__(cls, url):
if is_url_local(url):
return super(Project, cls).__new__(ProjectLocal, url)
else:
return super(Project, cls).__new__(ProjectRemote, url)
def __init__(self, url):
self.url = url
I would stick with the factory function approach. It's very standard python and easy to read and understand. You could make it more generic to handle more options in several ways such as by passing in the discriminator function and a map of results to classes.
If the first example works it's more by luck than by design. What if you wanted to have an __init__ defined in your subclass?
The following links may be helpful:
http://www.suttoncourtenay.org.uk/duncan/accu/pythonpatterns.html#factory
http://code.activestate.com/recipes/86900/
In addition, as you are using new style classes, using __new__ as the factory function (and not in a base class, a separate class is better) is what is usually done (as far as I know).
A factory function is generally simpler (as other people have already posted)
In addition, it isn't a good idea to set the __class__ attribute the way you have done.
I hope you find the answer and the links helpful.
All the best.
Yeah, as mentioned by #scooterXL, factory function is the best approach in that case, but I like to note a case for factories as classmethods.
Consider the following class hierarchy:
class Base(object):
def __init__(self, config):
""" Initialize Base object with config as dict."""
self.config = config
#classmethod
def from_file(cls, filename):
config = read_and_parse_file_with_config(filename)
return cls(filename)
class ExtendedBase(Base):
def behaviour(self):
pass # do something specific to ExtendedBase
Now you can create Base objects from config dict and from config file:
>>> Base({"k": "v"})
>>> Base.from_file("/etc/base/base.conf")
But also, you can do the same with ExtendedBase for free:
>>> ExtendedBase({"k": "v"})
>>> ExtendedBase.from_file("/etc/extended/extended.conf")
So, this classmethod factory can be also considered as auxiliary constructor.
I usually have a seperate factory class to do this. This way you don't have to use meta classes or assignments to self.__class__
I also try to avoid to put the knowledge about which classes are available for creation into the factory. Rather, I have all the available classes register themselves withe the factory during module import. The give there class and some information about when to select this class to the factory (this could be a name, a regex or a callable (e.g. a class method of the registering class)).
Works very well for me and also implements such things like encapsulation and information hiding.
I think the second approach using a factory function is a lot cleaner than making the implementation of your base class depend on its subclasses.
Adding to #Brian's answer, the way __new__ works with *args and **kwargs would be as follows:
class Animal:
def __new__(cls, subclass: str, name: str, *args, **kwargs):
if subclass.upper() == 'CAT':
return super(Animal, cls).__new__(Dog)
elif subclass.upper() == 'DOG':
return super(Animal, cls).__new__(Cat)
raise NotImplementedError(f'Unsupported subclass: "{subclass}"')
class Dog(Animal):
def __init__(self, name: str, *args, **kwargs):
self.name = name
print(f'Created Dog "{self.name}"')
class Cat(Animal):
def __init__(self, name: str, *args, num_whiskers: int = 5, **kwargs):
self.name = name
self.num_whiskers = num_whiskers
print(f'Created Cat "{self.name}" with {self.num_whiskers} whiskers')
sir_meowsalot = Animal(subclass='Cat', name='Sir Meowsalot')
shadow = Animal(subclass='Dog', name='Shadow')