I have a class with two class methods (using the classmethod() function) for getting and setting what is essentially a static variable. I tried to use the property() function with these, but it results in an error. I was able to reproduce the error with the following in the interpreter:
class Foo(object):
_var = 5
#classmethod
def getvar(cls):
return cls._var
#classmethod
def setvar(cls, value):
cls._var = value
var = property(getvar, setvar)
I can demonstrate the class methods, but they don't work as properties:
>>> f = Foo()
>>> f.getvar()
5
>>> f.setvar(4)
>>> f.getvar()
4
>>> f.var
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
TypeError: 'classmethod' object is not callable
>>> f.var=5
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
TypeError: 'classmethod' object is not callable
Is it possible to use the property() function with #classmethod decorated functions?
3.8 < Python < 3.11
Can use both decorators together. See this answer.
Python < 3.9
A property is created on a class but affects an instance. So if you want a classmethod property, create the property on the metaclass.
>>> class foo(object):
... _var = 5
... class __metaclass__(type): # Python 2 syntax for metaclasses
... pass
... #classmethod
... def getvar(cls):
... return cls._var
... #classmethod
... def setvar(cls, value):
... cls._var = value
...
>>> foo.__metaclass__.var = property(foo.getvar.im_func, foo.setvar.im_func)
>>> foo.var
5
>>> foo.var = 3
>>> foo.var
3
But since you're using a metaclass anyway, it will read better if you just move the classmethods in there.
>>> class foo(object):
... _var = 5
... class __metaclass__(type): # Python 2 syntax for metaclasses
... #property
... def var(cls):
... return cls._var
... #var.setter
... def var(cls, value):
... cls._var = value
...
>>> foo.var
5
>>> foo.var = 3
>>> foo.var
3
or, using Python 3's metaclass=... syntax, and the metaclass defined outside of the foo class body, and the metaclass responsible for setting the initial value of _var:
>>> class foo_meta(type):
... def __init__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
... cls._var = 5
... #property
... def var(cls):
... return cls._var
... #var.setter
... def var(cls, value):
... cls._var = value
...
>>> class foo(metaclass=foo_meta):
... pass
...
>>> foo.var
5
>>> foo.var = 3
>>> foo.var
3
In Python 3.9 You could use them together, but (as noted in #xgt's comment) it was deprecated in Python 3.11, so it is not recommended to use it.
Check the version remarks here:
https://docs.python.org/3.11/library/functions.html#classmethod
However, it used to work like so:
class G:
#classmethod
#property
def __doc__(cls):
return f'A doc for {cls.__name__!r}'
Order matters - due to how the descriptors interact, #classmethod has to be on top.
I hope this dead-simple read-only #classproperty decorator would help somebody looking for classproperties.
class classproperty(property):
def __get__(self, owner_self, owner_cls):
return self.fget(owner_cls)
class C(object):
#classproperty
def x(cls):
return 1
assert C.x == 1
assert C().x == 1
Reading the Python 2.2 release notes, I find the following.
The get method [of a property] won't be called when
the property is accessed as a class
attribute (C.x) instead of as an
instance attribute (C().x). If you
want to override the __get__ operation
for properties when used as a class
attribute, you can subclass property -
it is a new-style type itself - to
extend its __get__ method, or you can
define a descriptor type from scratch
by creating a new-style class that
defines __get__, __set__ and
__delete__ methods.
NOTE: The below method doesn't actually work for setters, only getters.
Therefore, I believe the prescribed solution is to create a ClassProperty as a subclass of property.
class ClassProperty(property):
def __get__(self, cls, owner):
return self.fget.__get__(None, owner)()
class foo(object):
_var=5
def getvar(cls):
return cls._var
getvar=classmethod(getvar)
def setvar(cls,value):
cls._var=value
setvar=classmethod(setvar)
var=ClassProperty(getvar,setvar)
assert foo.getvar() == 5
foo.setvar(4)
assert foo.getvar() == 4
assert foo.var == 4
foo.var = 3
assert foo.var == 3
However, the setters don't actually work:
foo.var = 4
assert foo.var == foo._var # raises AssertionError
foo._var is unchanged, you've simply overwritten the property with a new value.
You can also use ClassProperty as a decorator:
class foo(object):
_var = 5
#ClassProperty
#classmethod
def var(cls):
return cls._var
#var.setter
#classmethod
def var(cls, value):
cls._var = value
assert foo.var == 5
Is it possible to use the property() function with classmethod decorated functions?
No.
However, a classmethod is simply a bound method (a partial function) on a class accessible from instances of that class.
Since the instance is a function of the class and you can derive the class from the instance, you can can get whatever desired behavior you might want from a class-property with property:
class Example(object):
_class_property = None
#property
def class_property(self):
return self._class_property
#class_property.setter
def class_property(self, value):
type(self)._class_property = value
#class_property.deleter
def class_property(self):
del type(self)._class_property
This code can be used to test - it should pass without raising any errors:
ex1 = Example()
ex2 = Example()
ex1.class_property = None
ex2.class_property = 'Example'
assert ex1.class_property is ex2.class_property
del ex2.class_property
assert not hasattr(ex1, 'class_property')
And note that we didn't need metaclasses at all - and you don't directly access a metaclass through its classes' instances anyways.
writing a #classproperty decorator
You can actually create a classproperty decorator in just a few lines of code by subclassing property (it's implemented in C, but you can see equivalent Python here):
class classproperty(property):
def __get__(self, obj, objtype=None):
return super(classproperty, self).__get__(objtype)
def __set__(self, obj, value):
super(classproperty, self).__set__(type(obj), value)
def __delete__(self, obj):
super(classproperty, self).__delete__(type(obj))
Then treat the decorator as if it were a classmethod combined with property:
class Foo(object):
_bar = 5
#classproperty
def bar(cls):
"""this is the bar attribute - each subclass of Foo gets its own.
Lookups should follow the method resolution order.
"""
return cls._bar
#bar.setter
def bar(cls, value):
cls._bar = value
#bar.deleter
def bar(cls):
del cls._bar
And this code should work without errors:
def main():
f = Foo()
print(f.bar)
f.bar = 4
print(f.bar)
del f.bar
try:
f.bar
except AttributeError:
pass
else:
raise RuntimeError('f.bar must have worked - inconceivable!')
help(f) # includes the Foo.bar help.
f.bar = 5
class Bar(Foo):
"a subclass of Foo, nothing more"
help(Bar) # includes the Foo.bar help!
b = Bar()
b.bar = 'baz'
print(b.bar) # prints baz
del b.bar
print(b.bar) # prints 5 - looked up from Foo!
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
But I'm not sure how well-advised this would be. An old mailing list article suggests it shouldn't work.
Getting the property to work on the class:
The downside of the above is that the "class property" isn't accessible from the class, because it would simply overwrite the data descriptor from the class __dict__.
However, we can override this with a property defined in the metaclass __dict__. For example:
class MetaWithFooClassProperty(type):
#property
def foo(cls):
"""The foo property is a function of the class -
in this case, the trivial case of the identity function.
"""
return cls
And then a class instance of the metaclass could have a property that accesses the class's property using the principle already demonstrated in the prior sections:
class FooClassProperty(metaclass=MetaWithFooClassProperty):
#property
def foo(self):
"""access the class's property"""
return type(self).foo
And now we see both the instance
>>> FooClassProperty().foo
<class '__main__.FooClassProperty'>
and the class
>>> FooClassProperty.foo
<class '__main__.FooClassProperty'>
have access to the class property.
Python 3!
See #Amit Portnoy's answer for an even cleaner method in python >= 3.9
Old question, lots of views, sorely in need of a one-true Python 3 way.
Luckily, it's easy with the metaclass kwarg:
class FooProperties(type):
#property
def var(cls):
return cls._var
class Foo(object, metaclass=FooProperties):
_var = 'FOO!'
Then, >>> Foo.var
'FOO!'
There is no reasonable way to make this "class property" system to work in Python.
Here is one unreasonable way to make it work. You can certainly make it more seamless with increasing amounts of metaclass magic.
class ClassProperty(object):
def __init__(self, getter, setter):
self.getter = getter
self.setter = setter
def __get__(self, cls, owner):
return getattr(cls, self.getter)()
def __set__(self, cls, value):
getattr(cls, self.setter)(value)
class MetaFoo(type):
var = ClassProperty('getvar', 'setvar')
class Foo(object):
__metaclass__ = MetaFoo
_var = 5
#classmethod
def getvar(cls):
print "Getting var =", cls._var
return cls._var
#classmethod
def setvar(cls, value):
print "Setting var =", value
cls._var = value
x = Foo.var
print "Foo.var = ", x
Foo.var = 42
x = Foo.var
print "Foo.var = ", x
The knot of the issue is that properties are what Python calls "descriptors". There is no short and easy way to explain how this sort of metaprogramming works, so I must point you to the descriptor howto.
You only ever need to understand this sort of things if you are implementing a fairly advanced framework. Like a transparent object persistence or RPC system, or a kind of domain-specific language.
However, in a comment to a previous answer, you say that you
need to modify an attribute that in such a way that is seen by all instances of a class, and in the scope from which these class methods are called does not have references to all instances of the class.
It seems to me, what you really want is an Observer design pattern.
Setting it only on the meta class doesn't help if you want to access the class property via an instantiated object, in this case you need to install a normal property on the object as well (which dispatches to the class property). I think the following is a bit more clear:
#!/usr/bin/python
class classproperty(property):
def __get__(self, obj, type_):
return self.fget.__get__(None, type_)()
def __set__(self, obj, value):
cls = type(obj)
return self.fset.__get__(None, cls)(value)
class A (object):
_foo = 1
#classproperty
#classmethod
def foo(cls):
return cls._foo
#foo.setter
#classmethod
def foo(cls, value):
cls.foo = value
a = A()
print a.foo
b = A()
print b.foo
b.foo = 5
print a.foo
A.foo = 10
print b.foo
print A.foo
Half a solution, __set__ on the class does not work, still. The solution is a custom property class implementing both a property and a staticmethod
class ClassProperty(object):
def __init__(self, fget, fset):
self.fget = fget
self.fset = fset
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
return self.fget()
def __set__(self, instance, value):
self.fset(value)
class Foo(object):
_bar = 1
def get_bar():
print 'getting'
return Foo._bar
def set_bar(value):
print 'setting'
Foo._bar = value
bar = ClassProperty(get_bar, set_bar)
f = Foo()
#__get__ works
f.bar
Foo.bar
f.bar = 2
Foo.bar = 3 #__set__ does not
Because I need to modify an attribute that in such a way that is seen by all instances of a class, and in the scope from which these class methods are called does not have references to all instances of the class.
Do you have access to at least one instance of the class? I can think of a way to do it then:
class MyClass (object):
__var = None
def _set_var (self, value):
type (self).__var = value
def _get_var (self):
return self.__var
var = property (_get_var, _set_var)
a = MyClass ()
b = MyClass ()
a.var = "foo"
print b.var
Give this a try, it gets the job done without having to change/add a lot of existing code.
>>> class foo(object):
... _var = 5
... def getvar(cls):
... return cls._var
... getvar = classmethod(getvar)
... def setvar(cls, value):
... cls._var = value
... setvar = classmethod(setvar)
... var = property(lambda self: self.getvar(), lambda self, val: self.setvar(val))
...
>>> f = foo()
>>> f.var
5
>>> f.var = 3
>>> f.var
3
The property function needs two callable arguments. give them lambda wrappers (which it passes the instance as its first argument) and all is well.
Here's a solution which should work for both access via the class and access via an instance which uses a metaclass.
In [1]: class ClassPropertyMeta(type):
...: #property
...: def prop(cls):
...: return cls._prop
...: def __new__(cls, name, parents, dct):
...: # This makes overriding __getattr__ and __setattr__ in the class impossible, but should be fixable
...: dct['__getattr__'] = classmethod(lambda cls, attr: getattr(cls, attr))
...: dct['__setattr__'] = classmethod(lambda cls, attr, val: setattr(cls, attr, val))
...: return super(ClassPropertyMeta, cls).__new__(cls, name, parents, dct)
...:
In [2]: class ClassProperty(object):
...: __metaclass__ = ClassPropertyMeta
...: _prop = 42
...: def __getattr__(self, attr):
...: raise Exception('Never gets called')
...:
In [3]: ClassProperty.prop
Out[3]: 42
In [4]: ClassProperty.prop = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-4-e2e8b423818a> in <module>()
----> 1 ClassProperty.prop = 1
AttributeError: can't set attribute
In [5]: cp = ClassProperty()
In [6]: cp.prop
Out[6]: 42
In [7]: cp.prop = 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-7-e8284a3ee950> in <module>()
----> 1 cp.prop = 1
<ipython-input-1-16b7c320d521> in <lambda>(cls, attr, val)
6 # This makes overriding __getattr__ and __setattr__ in the class impossible, but should be fixable
7 dct['__getattr__'] = classmethod(lambda cls, attr: getattr(cls, attr))
----> 8 dct['__setattr__'] = classmethod(lambda cls, attr, val: setattr(cls, attr, val))
9 return super(ClassPropertyMeta, cls).__new__(cls, name, parents, dct)
AttributeError: can't set attribute
This also works with a setter defined in the metaclass.
I found one clean solution to this problem. It's a package called classutilities (pip install classutilities), see the documentation here on PyPi.
Consider example:
import classutilities
class SomeClass(classutilities.ClassPropertiesMixin):
_some_variable = 8 # Some encapsulated class variable
#classutilities.classproperty
def some_variable(cls): # class property getter
return cls._some_variable
#some_variable.setter
def some_variable(cls, value): # class property setter
cls._some_variable = value
You can use it on both class level and instance level:
# Getter on class level:
value = SomeClass.some_variable
print(value) # >>> 8
# Getter on instance level
inst = SomeClass()
value = inst.some_variable
print(value) # >>> 8
# Setter on class level:
new_value = 9
SomeClass.some_variable = new_value
print(SomeClass.some_variable) # >>> 9
print(SomeClass._some_variable) # >>> 9
# Setter on instance level
inst = SomeClass()
inst.some_variable = new_value
print(SomeClass.some_variable) # >>> 9
print(SomeClass._some_variable) # >>> 9
print(inst.some_variable) # >>> 9
print(inst._some_variable) # >>> 9
As you can see, it works correctly under all circumstances.
Based on https://stackoverflow.com/a/1800999/2290820
class MetaProperty(type):
def __init__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
super()
#property
def praparty(cls):
return cls._var
#praparty.setter
def praparty(cls, val):
cls._var = val
class A(metaclass=MetaProperty):
_var = 5
print(A.praparty)
A.praparty = 6
print(A.praparty)
For a functional approach pre Python 3.9 you can use this:
def classproperty(fget):
return type(
'classproperty',
(),
{'__get__': lambda self, _, cls: fget(cls), '__module__': None}
)()
class Item:
a = 47
#classproperty
def x(cls):
return cls.a
Item.x
After searching different places, I found a method to define a classproperty
valid with Python 2 and 3.
from future.utils import with_metaclass
class BuilderMetaClass(type):
#property
def load_namespaces(self):
return (self.__sourcepath__)
class BuilderMixin(with_metaclass(BuilderMetaClass, object)):
__sourcepath__ = 'sp'
print(BuilderMixin.load_namespaces)
Hope this can help somebody :)
A code completion friendly solution for Python < 3.9
from typing import (
Callable,
Generic,
TypeVar,
)
T = TypeVar('T')
class classproperty(Generic[T]):
"""Converts a method to a class property.
"""
def __init__(self, f: Callable[..., T]):
self.fget = f
def __get__(self, instance, owner) -> T:
return self.fget(owner)
Here is my solution that also caches the class property
class class_property(object):
# this caches the result of the function call for fn with cls input
# use this as a decorator on function methods that you want converted
# into cached properties
def __init__(self, fn):
self._fn_name = fn.__name__
if not isinstance(fn, (classmethod, staticmethod)):
fn = classmethod(fn)
self._fn = fn
def __get__(self, obj, cls=None):
if cls is None:
cls = type(obj)
if (
self._fn_name in vars(cls) and
type(vars(cls)[self._fn_name]).__name__ != "class_property"
):
return vars(cls)[self._fn_name]
else:
value = self._fn.__get__(obj, cls)()
setattr(cls, self._fn_name, value)
return value
Here's my suggestion. Don't use class methods.
Seriously.
What's the reason for using class methods in this case? Why not have an ordinary object of an ordinary class?
If you simply want to change the value, a property isn't really very helpful is it? Just set the attribute value and be done with it.
A property should only be used if there's something to conceal -- something that might change in a future implementation.
Maybe your example is way stripped down, and there is some hellish calculation you've left off. But it doesn't look like the property adds significant value.
The Java-influenced "privacy" techniques (in Python, attribute names that begin with _) aren't really very helpful. Private from whom? The point of private is a little nebulous when you have the source (as you do in Python.)
The Java-influenced EJB-style getters and setters (often done as properties in Python) are there to facilitate Java's primitive introspection as well as to pass muster with the static language compiler. All those getters and setters aren't as helpful in Python.
I have a class Foo that uses lazy loading for Foo.bar.
class Foo(object):
#property
def bar(self):
if not hasattr(self, '_bar'):
self._initBar()
return self._bar
def _initBar(self):
self._bar = 'bar'
foo = Foo()
print(foo.bar) # prints "bar"
However when i try to convert Foo to use class methods only, Foo.bar is not giving me bar, but instead giving:
<property object at 0x000001CA1C344728>
Why is it not giving me bar?
class Foo(object):
#property
#classmethod
def bar(cls):
if not hasattr(cls, '_bar'):
cls._initBar()
return cls._bar
#classmethod
def _initBar(cls):
cls._bar = 'bar'
print(Foo.bar) # prints "<property object at 0x000001CA1C344728>"
The property built-in is a handy tool in Python that presents an easy use case of a more powerful mechanism, which is the "descriptor protocol".
Basically, any object when retrieved from an instance or from a class is first checked if it has one of __get__, __set__ or __del__ methods. property wraps getter functions to be called by __get__ when the attribute is retrieved from an instance, but returns the property object itself when it is retrieved from the class instead. (That is even a common use case for other descriptors)
Thus, if you want a property like behavior for class attributes, you have to create your own descriptor class, sporting the __get__ method - or, simply create your class with a metaclass, and use property as is, on the metaclass. The drawbacks of the later are many: you willneed one custom metaclass for each class where you want the managed class attributes being just the first of them. On the other hand, creating your own descriptor is quite easy:
class MyProperty:
def __init__(self, initializer):
self.initializer = initializer
def __set_name__(self, owner, name):
self.name = name
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
if not hasattr(owner, "_" + self.name):
initializer = getattr(owner, self.initializer)
initializer()
return getattr(owner, "_" + self.name)
class Foo:
bar = MyProperty("_initBar")
#classmethod
def _initBar(cls):
cls._bar = 'bar'
Please note that __set_name__ is only implemented from Python 3.6 on. On older Python's, including Python 2.x, you should use:
class MyProperty(object):
def __init__(self, initializer, name):
self.initializer = initializer
self.name = name
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
if not hasattr(owner, "_" + self.name):
initializer = getattr(owner, self.initializer)
initializer(owner)
return getattr(owner, "_" + self.name)
class Foo(object):
bar = MyProperty("_initBar", name='bar')
#classmethod
def _initBar(cls):
cls._bar = 'bar'
You could use a metaclass, because property objects are meant to be accessed through the instance and if your intended instance is the class itself, then you need to put the property on the class of the class, i.e. the metaclass:
In [37]: class MetaFoo(type):
...: #property
...: def bar(cls):
...: if not hasattr(cls, '_bar'):
...: print("hard at work!")
...: cls._init_bar()
...: return cls._bar
...:
In [38]: class Foo(metaclass=MetaFoo):
...: #classmethod
...: def _init_bar(cls):
...: cls._bar = 'bar'
...:
In [39]: Foo.bar
hard at work!
Out[39]: 'bar'
In [40]: Foo.bar
Out[40]: 'bar'
Of course, while this may be possible, I'm agnostic about whether or not it is not advisable.
Edit
As #jsbueno demonstrates, it is much more sane to simply define your own descriptor, which can give you a much more flexible behavior.
In Python, is it possible to get the object, say Foo, that contains another object, Bar, from within Bar itself? Here is an example of what I mean
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self):
self.bar = Bar()
self.text = "Hello World"
class Bar(object):
def __init__(self):
self.newText = foo.text #This is what I want to do,
#access the properties of the container object
foo = Foo()
Is this possible? Thanks!
Pass a reference to the Bar object, like so:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self):
self.text = "Hello World" # has to be created first, so Bar.__init__ can reference it
self.bar = Bar(self)
class Bar(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
self.parent = parent
self.newText = parent.text
foo = Foo()
Edit: as pointed out by #thomleo, this can cause problems with garbage collection. The suggested solution is laid out at http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2009/06/12/safely-using-destructors-in-python/ and looks like
import weakref
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self):
self.text = "Hello World"
self.bar = Bar(self)
class Bar(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
self.parent = weakref.ref(parent) # <= garbage-collector safe!
self.newText = parent.text
foo = Foo()
is it possible to get the object, say Foo, that contains another object, Bar, from within Bar itself?
Not "automatically", because the language isn't built like that, and in particular, the language is built such that there is no way to guarantee that Foo exists.
That said, you can always do it explicitly. Attributes, like every other identifier in Python, are just names, not storage space for data; so nothing prevents you from letting the Bar instance have a manually assigned foo attribute that is a Foo instance, and vice-versa at the same time.
Yes, it's possible. Even without passing the container reference on object creation, i.e. if your object is a class attribute.
Your object needs to implement the descriptor protocol (have a __get__()):
class ChildName(SimpleNamespace):
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
# instance is our parent
return f'I am {self.name}, my parent is {instance.name}.'
class ChildDiff(SimpleNamespace):
#property
def diff(self):
return self.born - self.parent.born
def age_diff(self):
return f'I am {self.diff} years older than {self.parent.name}.'
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
self.parent = instance # XXX: weakref?
return self # expose object to be able call age_diff() etc.
class Parent(SimpleNamespace):
child_name = ChildName(name='Bar')
child_diff = ChildDiff(born=42)
parent = Parent(name='Foo', born=23)
print(parent.child_name) # ... I am Bar, my parent is Foo.
print(parent.child_diff.age_diff()) # ... I am 19 years older than Foo.
This worked for me:
the parent:
import child
obj_1 = 25 # an object that both parent and child can access
def startup(): # any startup function
global obj_1
child.ref( obj_1 ) # send the shared object to the child
...
the child:
obj_1 = 0 # initual value will be overwritten
def ref(shared_obj): # receive a reference to the shared object
global obj_1 # shared object is global in the child, optional
obj_1 = shared_obj # set obj_1 in the child to be obj_1 in the parent
What about using inheritance:
class Bar(object):
def __init__(self):
self.newText = self.text
class Foo(Bar):
def __init__(self):
self.txt = 'Hello World'
Bar.__init__(self)
foo = Foo()
print foo.newText
I'm using functools.partial to create a closure, and using setattr to make is callable from a class instance. The idea here is to create a set of methods at runtime.
#!/usr/bin/python
from functools import partial
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self, val):
self.val = val
#classmethod
def generateMethods(self):
def dummy(conf1, self):
print "conf1:", conf1
print "self.val:", self.val
print
for s in ('dynamic_1', 'dynamic_2'):
closed = partial(dummy, s)
setattr(self, "test_{0}".format(s), closed)
It seems to me that partial would bind the current value of s to dummy's first arg, which would free up self to be passed when this is called from an instance.
It's not working how I'd expect
if __name__ == '__main__':
# Dynamically create some methods
MyClass.generateMethods()
# Create an instance
x = MyClass('FOO')
# The dynamically created methods aren't callable from the instance :(
#x.test_dynamic_1()
# TypeError: dummy() takes exactly 2 arguments (1 given)
# .. but these work just fine
MyClass.test_dynamic_1(x)
MyClass.test_dynamic_2(x)
Is it possible to dynamically create methods which are closures, but callable from instances of the class?
I think the new functools.partialmethod is for this exact use case.
Straight from the docs:
>>> class Cell(object):
... def __init__(self):
... self._alive = False
... #property
... def alive(self):
... return self._alive
... def set_state(self, state):
... self._alive = bool(state)
... set_alive = partialmethod(set_state, True)
... set_dead = partialmethod(set_state, False)
...
>>> c = Cell()
>>> c.alive
False
>>> c.set_alive()
>>> c.alive
True
The issue is that when you're calling them using the instances they are actually not bound methods, i.e they have no knowledge about the instance. Bound methods insert the self to the arguments of the underlying function automatically when called, it is stored in the __self__ attribute of bound method.
So, override __getattribute__ and see if the object being fetched is an instance of partial type or not, if yes, convert it to a bound method using types.MethodType.
Code:
#!/usr/bin/python
from functools import partial
import types
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self, val):
self.val = val
#classmethod
def generateMethods(self):
def dummy(conf1, self):
print "conf1:", conf1
print "self.val:", self.val
print
for s in ('dynamic_1', 'dynamic_2'):
closed = partial(dummy, s)
setattr(self, "test_{0}".format(s), closed)
def __getattribute__(self, attr):
# Here we do have access to the much need instance(self)
obj = object.__getattribute__(self, attr)
if isinstance(obj, partial):
return types.MethodType(obj, self, type(self))
else:
return obj
if __name__ == '__main__':
MyClass.generateMethods()
x = MyClass('FOO')
x.test_dynamic_1()
x.test_dynamic_2()
I'm trying to find the name of the class that contains method code.
In the example underneath I use self.__class__.__name__, but of course this returns the name of the class of which self is an instance and not class that contains the test() method code. b.test() will print 'B' while I would like to get 'A'.
I looked into the inspect module documentation but did not find anything directly useful.
class A:
def __init__(self):
pass
def test(self):
print self.__class__.__name__
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
A.__init__(self)
a = A()
b = B()
a.test()
b.test()
In Python 3.x, you can simply use __class__.__name__. The __class__ name is mildly magic, and not the same thing as the __class__ attribute of self.
In Python 2.x, there is no good way to get at that information. You can use stack inspection to get the code object, then walk the class hierarchy looking for the right method, but it's slow and tedious and will probably break when you don't want it to. You can also use a metaclass or a class decorator to post-process the class in some way, but both of those are rather intrusive approaches. And you can do something really ugly, like accessing self.__nonexistant_attribute, catching the AttributeError and extracting the class name from the mangled name. None of those approaches are really worth it if you just want to avoid typing the name twice; at least forgetting to update the name can be made a little more obvious by doing something like:
class C:
...
def report_name(self):
print C.__name__
inspect.getmro gives you a tuple of the classes where the method might come from, in order. As soon as you find one of them that has the method's name in its dict, you're done:
for c in inspect.getmro(self.__class__):
if 'test' in vars(c): break
return c.__name__
Use __dict__ of class object itself:
class A(object):
def foo(self):
pass
class B(A):
pass
def find_decl_class(cls, method):
if method in cls.__dict__:
return cls
for b in cls.__bases__:
decl = find_decl_class(b, method)
if decl:
return decl
print 'foo' in A.__dict__
print 'foo' in B.__dict__
print find_decl_class(B, 'foo').__name__
Will print True, False, A
You can use (abuse?) private name mangling to accomplish this effect. If you look up an attribute on self that starts with __ from inside a method, python changes the name from __attribute to _classThisMethodWasDefinedIn__attribute.
Just somehow stash the classname you want in mangled-form where the method can see it. As an example, we can define a __new__ method on the base class that does it:
def mangle(cls, attrname):
if not attrname.startswith('__'):
raise ValueError('attrname must start with __')
return '_%s%s' % (cls.__name__, attrname)
class A(object):
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
obj = object.__new__(cls)
for c in cls.mro():
setattr(obj, mangle(c, '__defn_classname'), c.__name__)
return obj
def __init__(self):
pass
def test(self):
print self.__defn_classname
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
A.__init__(self)
a = A()
b = B()
a.test()
b.test()
which prints:
A
A
You can do
>>> class A(object):
... def __init__(self):
... pass
... def test(self):
... for b in self.__class__.__bases__:
... if hasattr(b, 'test'):
... return b.__name__
... return self.__class__.__name__
...
>>> class B(A):
... def __init__(self):
... A.__init__(self)
...
>>> B().test()
'A'
>>> A().test()
'A'
>>>
Keep in mind that you could simplify it by using __class__.__base__, but if you use multiple inheritance, this version will work better.
It simply checks first on its baseclasses for test. It's not the prettiest, but it works.