I have two related models:
class FirstModel(models.Model):
base_value = models.FloatField()
class SecondModel(models.Model):
parent = models.ForeignKey(FirstModel)
#property
def parent_value(self):
return self.parent.base_value
#property
def calculate(self):
return self.parent_value + 1
In general, SecondModel.calculate is mostly used in the context of its related FirstModel. However, I sometimes want to be able to call calculate with a temporary value as its parent_value. Something like this:
foo = SecondModel()
# would look in the database for the related FirstModel and add 1 to its base_value
foo.calculate
foo.parent_value = 10
foo.calculate # should return 11
Obviously you can't do this because the parent_value is a read-only property. I also have many different models similar to SecondModel that needs to have this kind of capability.
I've thought about and tried several things, but none have quite seemed to work:
1) Writing a Django proxy model - possible, but the number of objects is rather high, so I'd be writing a lot of similar code. Also, there appears to be a bug related to overriding properties: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16176. But it'd look like this:
class ModelProxy(SecondModel):
class Meta:
proxy = True
def __init__(self, temp_value):
self.parent_value = temp_value
2) Overloading the parent_value property on the instance - like this:
foo = SecondModel()
setattr(foo, 'parent_value', 10)
but you can't do this because properties are members of the class, not the instance. And I only want the temporary value to be set for the instance
3) Metaclass or class generator? - Seems overly complicated. Also, I am uncertain what would happen if I used a metaclass to dynamically generate classes that are children of models.Model. Would I run into problems with the db tables not being in sync?
4) Rewriting the properties with proper getters and setters? - maybe the solution is to rewrite SecondModel so that the property can be set?
Any suggestions?
I believe a mixin would achieve what you want to do, and provide a simple and reusable way of supporting temporary values in your calculations. By mixing the below example into each model you want this behaviour on you can then:
Set a temporary parent value on each model
When calculate is called, it will check whether there is a property parent_value available, and if not it will use the temporary parent value in the calculation.
The code below should achieve what you are looking for - apologies I haven't been able to test it yet but it should be about right - please let me know if any problems that need editing.
class CalculateMixin(object):
#property
def temp_parent_value(self):
return self._temp_parent_value
#temp_parent_value.setter
def temp_parent_value(self, value):
self._temp_parent_value = value
#property
def calculate(self):
parent_value = self.parent_value if self.parent_value else self.temp_parent_value
return parent_value + 1
class SecondModel(models.Model, CalculateMixin):
parent = models.ForeignKey(FirstModel)
self.temp_parent_value = 'Whatever value you desire'
#property
def parent_value(self):
return self.parent.base_value
You can use the property setter:
class SecondModel(models.Model):
_base_value = None
parent = models.ForeignKey(FirstModel)
#property
def parent_value(self):
if self._base_value is None:
return self.parent.base_value
else:
return self._base_value
#parent_value.setter
def parent_value(self, value):
self._base_value = value
#property
def calculate(self):
return self.parent_value + 1
I think you can do what you need to using the mixin PropertyOverrideMixin shown below which, if some property value isn't available, then it will look for the same property prefixed with temp_. This will allow you to provide temporary values that can be used when the real property values can't be looked up.
Below is the mixin, some example models and a unit test to show how this can work. Hopefully this can be adapted for your problem! Finally it is worth mentioning that the properties here can be interchanged with normal object attributes and it should still all work.
from unittest import TestCase
class PropertyOverrideMixin(object):
def __getattribute__(self, name):
"""
Override that, if an attribute isn't found on the object, then it instead
looks for the same attribute prefixed with 'temp_' and tries to return
that value.
"""
try:
return object.__getattribute__(self, name)
except AttributeError:
temp_name = 'temp_{0}'.format(name)
return object.__getattribute__(self, temp_name)
class ParentModel(object):
attribute_1 = 'parent value 1'
class Model(PropertyOverrideMixin):
# Set our temporary property values
#property
def temp_attribute_1(self):
return 'temporary value 1'
#property
def temp_attribute_2(self):
return 'temporary value 2'
# Attribute 1 looks up value on its parent
#property
def attribute_1(self):
return self.parent.attribute_1
# Attribute 2 looks up a value on this object
#property
def attribute_2(self):
return self.some_other_attribute
class PropertyOverrideMixinTest(TestCase):
def test_attributes(self):
model = Model()
# Looking up attributes 1 and 2 returns the temp versions at first
self.assertEquals('temporary value 1', model.attribute_1)
self.assertEquals('temporary value 2', model.attribute_2)
# Now we set the parent, and lookup of attribute 1 works on the parent
model.parent = ParentModel()
self.assertEquals('parent value 1', model.attribute_1)
# now we set attribute_2, so this gets returned and the temporary ignored
model.some_other_attribute = 'value 2'
self.assertEquals('value 2', model.attribute_2)
Related
I'm not sure whether this is a great approach to be using, but I'm not hugely experienced with Python so please accept my apologies. I've tried to do some research on this but other related questions have been given alternative problem-specific solutions - none of which apply to my specific case.
I have a class that handles the training/querying of my specific machine learning model. This algorithm is running on a remote sensor, various values are fed into the object which returns None if the algorithm isn't trained. Once trained, it returns either True or False depending on the classification assigned to new inputs. Occasionally, the class updates a couple of threshold parameters and I need to know when this occurs.
I am using sockets to pass messages from the remote sensor to my main server. I didn't want to complicate the ML algorithm class by filling it up with message passing code and so instead I've been handling this in a Main class that imports the "algorithm" class. I want the Main class to be able to determine when the threshold parameters are updated and report this back to the server.
class MyAlgorithmClass:
def feed_value(self):
....
class Main:
def __init__(self):
self._algorithm_data = MyAlgorithmClass()
self._sensor_data_queue = Queue()
def process_data(self):
while True:
sensor_value = self._sensor_data_queue.get()
result, value = self._algorithm_data.feed_value(sensor_value)
if result is None:
# value represents % training complete
self._socket.emit('training', value)
elif result is True:
# value represents % chance that input is categoryA
self._socket.emit('categoryA', value)
elif result is False:
...
My initial idea was to add a property to MyAlgorithmClass with a setter. I could then decorate this in my Main class so that every time the setter is called, I can use the value... for example:
class MyAlgorithmClass:
#property
def param1(self):
return self._param1
#param1.setter
def param1(self, value):
self._param1 = value
class Main:
def __init__(self):
self._algorithm_data = MyAlgorithmClass()
self._sensor_data_queue = Queue()
def watch_param1(func):
def inner(*args):
self._socket.emit('param1_updated', *args)
func(*args)
My problem now, is how do I decorate the self._algorithm_data.param1 setter with watch_param1? If I simply set self._algorithm_data.param1 = watch_param1 then I will just end up setting self._algorithm_data._param1 equal to my function which isn't what I want to do.
I could use getter/setter methods instead of a property, but this isn't very pythonic and as multiple people are modifying this code, I don't want the methods to be replaced/changed for properties by somebody else later on.
What is the best approach here? This is a small example but I will have slightly more complex examples of this later on and I don't want something that will cause overcomplication of the algorithm class. Obviously, another option is the Observer pattern but I'm not sure how appropriate it is here where I only have a single variable to monitor in some cases.
I'm really struggling to get a good solution put together so any advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Tom
Use descriptors. They let you customize attribute lookup, storage, and deletion in Python.
A simplified toy version of your code with descriptors looks something like:
class WatchedParam:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def __get__(self, instance, insttype=None):
print(f"{self.name} : value accessed")
return getattr(instance, '_' + self.name)
def __set__(self, instance, new_val):
print(f"{self.name} : value set")
setattr(instance, '_' + self.name, new_val)
class MyAlgorithmClass:
param1 = WatchedParam("param1")
param2 = WatchedParam("param2")
def __init__(self, param1, param2, param3):
self.param1 = param1
self.param2 = param2
self.param3 = param3
class Main:
def __init__(self):
self._data = MyAlgorithmClass(10, 20, 50)
m = Main()
m._data.param1 # calls WatchedParam.__get__
m._data.param2 = 100 # calls WatchedParam.__set__
The WatchedParam class is a descriptor and can be used in MyAlgorithmClass to specify the parameters that need to be monitored.
The solution I went for is as follows, using a 'Proxy' subclass which overrides the properties. Eventually, once I have a better understanding of the watched parameters, I won't need to watch them anymore. At this point I will be able to swap out the Proxy for the base class and continue using the code as normal.
class MyAlgorithmClassProxy(MyAlgorithmClass):
#property
def watch_param1(self):
return MyAlgorithmClass.watch_param1.fget(self)
#watch_param1.setter
def watch_param1(self, value):
self._socket.emit('param1_updated', *args)
MyAlgorithmClass.watch_param1.fset(self, value)
I've a class like following:
class Invoice
def __init__(self, invoice_id):
self.invoice_id = invoice_id
self._amount = None
#property
def amount(self):
return self._amount
#amount.setter
def amount(self, amount):
self._amount = amount
In the above example, whenever I would try to get invoice amount without setting its value, I would get a None, like following:
invoice = Invoice(invoice_id='asdf234')
invoice.amount
>> None
But in this situation, None is not the correct default value for amount. I should be able to differentiate between amount value as None vs amount value not been set at all. So question is following:
How do we handle cases when class property doesn't have a right default value ? In the above example if I remove self._amount = None from init, I would get AttributeError for self._amount and self.amount would return a valid value only after I call invoice.amount = 5. Is this the right way to handle it ? But this also leads to inconsistency in object state as application would be changing instance properties at runtime.
I've kept amount as a property for invoice for better understanding and readability of Invoice and its attributes. Should class properties only be used when we're aware of its init / default values ?
None is conventionally used for the absence of a value, but sometimes you need it to actually be an allowable value. If you want to be able to distinguish between None and an un-set value, simply define your own singleton for this purpose.
class Undefined:
__str__ = __repr__ = lambda self: "Undefined"
Undefined = Undefined()
class Invoice
def __init__(self, invoice_id):
self.invoice_id = invoice_id
self._amount = Undefined
#property
def amount(self):
return self._amount
#amount.setter
def amount(self, amount):
if amount is Undefined:
raise ValueError("amount must be an actual value")
self._amount = amount
Of course, you may now need to test for Undefined in other methods to make sure they're not being used before the instance is properly initialized. A better approach might be to set the attribute during initialization and require its value to be passed in to __init__(). That way, you avoid having an Invoice in an invalid (incompletely initialized) state. Someone could still set _amount to an invalid value, but they'd simply get the trouble they were asking for. We're all adults here.
Don't use a property in this case. Your getters and setters don't do anything except return and set the value. Just use a normal attribute. If you later want to control access, you can just add that property later without changing the interface of your class!
As for dealing with non-set values, just create your own object to represent a value that has never been set. It can be as simple as:
>>> NOT_SET = object()
>>> class Invoice:
... def __init__(self, invoice_id):
... self.invoice_id = invoice_id
... self.amount = NOT_SET
...
>>> inv = Invoice(42)
>>> if inv.amount is NOT_SET:
... inv.amount = 1
...
You could also use an enum if you want better support for typing.
You can make a static class and use that to determine whether a value has been set at all.
class AmountNotSet(object):
pass
class Invoice(object):
def __init__(self, invoice_id):
self.invoice_id = invoice_id
self._amount = AmountNotSet
# ...etc...
Then you can check whether the invoice is set or not like so:
invoice1 = Invoice(1)
invoice2 = Invoice(2)
invoice2.amount = None
invoice1.amount is AmountNotSet # => True
invoice2.amount is None # => True
I have the following problem and I need advice on how to solve it the best technically in Python. As I am new to programming I would like to have some advice.
So I will have the following object and they should store something. Here is an example:
object 1: cash dividends (they will have the following properties)
exdate (will store a list of dates)
recorddate (will store a list of dates)
paydate (will store a list of dates)
ISIN (will store a list of text)
object 2: stocksplits (they will have the following prpoerties)
stockplitratio (will be some ration)
exdate(list of dates)
...
I have tried to solve it like this:
class cashDividends(object):
def __init__(self, _gross,_net,_ISIN, _paydate, _exdate, _recorddate, _frequency, _type, _announceddate, _currency):
self.gross = _gross
self.net = _net
self.ISIN = _ISIN
self.paydate = _paydate
self.exdate = _exdate
self.recorddate = _recorddate
self.frequency = _frequency
self.type = _type
self.announceddate = _announceddate
self.currency = _currency
So if I have this I would have to create another class named stockplits and then define an __init__ function again.
However is there a way where I can have one class like "Corporate Actions" and then have stock splits and cashdividends in there ?
Sure you can! In python you can pass classes to other classes.
Here a simple example:
class A():
def __init__(self):
self.x = 0
class B():
def __init__(self):
self.x = 1
class Container():
def __init__(self, objects):
self.x = [obj.x for obj in objects]
a = A()
b = B()
c = Container([a,b])
c.x
[0,1]
If I understood correctly what you want is an object that has other objects from a class you created as property?
class CorporateActions(object):
def __init__(self, aCashDividend, aStockSplit):
self.cashDividend = aCashDividend
self.stockSplit = aStockSplit
myCashDividends = CashDividends(...) #corresponding parameters here
myStockSplit = StockSplit(...)
myCorporateActions = CorporateActions(myCashDividends, myStockSplit)
Strictly speaking this answer isn't an answer for the final question. However, it is a way to make your life slightly easier.
Consider creating a sort-of template class (I'm using this term loosely; there's no such thing in Python) that does the __init__ work for you. Like this:
class KwargAttrs():
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
for k,v in kwargs.items():
setattr(self, k, v)
def _update(self, **kwargs):
args_dict = {k:(kwargs[k] if k in kwargs else self.__dict__[k]) for k in self.__dict__}
self.__dict__.update(args_dict)
This class uses every supplied keyword argument as an object attribute. Use it this way:
class CashDividends(KwargAttrs):
def __init__(self, gross, net, ISIN, paydate, exdate, recorddate, frequency, type, announceddate, currency):
# save the namespace before it gets polluted
super().__init__(**locals())
# work that might pollute local namespace goes here
# OPTIONAL: update the argument values in case they were modified:
super()._update(**locals())
Using a method like this, you don't have to go through the argument list and assign every single object attribute; it happens automatically.
We bookend everything you need to accomplish in the __init__ method with method calls to the parent-class via super(). We do this because locals() returns a dict every variable in the function's current namespace, so you need to 1.) capture that namespace before any other work pollutes it and 2.) update the namespace in case any work changes the argument values.
The call to update is optional, but the values of the supplied arguments will not be updated if something is done to them after the call to super().__init__() (that is, unless you change the values using setattr(self, 'argname, value)`, which is not a bad idea).
You can continue using this class like so:
class StockSplits(KwargAttrs):
def __init__(self, stocksplitratio, gross, net, ISIN, paydate, exdate, recorddate, frequency, type, announceddate, currency):
super().__init__(**locals())
As mentioned in the other answers you can create a container for our other classes, but you can even do that using this same template class:
class CorporateActions(KwargAttrs):
def __init__(self, stock_splits , cash_dividends):
super().__init__(**locals())
ca = CorporateActions(stock_splits = StockSplits(<arguments>), cash_dividends = CashDividends(<arguments>) )
Question
How can you extend a python property?
A subclass can extend a super class's function by calling it in the overloaded version, and then operating on the result. Here's an example of what I mean when I say "extending a function":
# Extending a function (a tongue-in-cheek example)
class NormalMath(object):
def __init__(self, number):
self.number = number
def add_pi(self):
n = self.number
return n + 3.1415
class NewMath(object):
def add_pi(self):
# NewMath doesn't know how NormalMath added pi (and shouldn't need to).
# It just uses the result.
n = NormalMath.add_pi(self)
# In NewMath, fractions are considered too hard for our users.
# We therefore silently convert them to integers.
return int(n)
Is there an analogous operation to extending functions, but for functions that use the property decorator?
I want to do some additional calculations immediately after getting an expensive-to-compute attribute. I need to keep the attribute's access lazy. I don't want the user to have to invoke a special routine to make the calculations. basically, I don't want the user to ever know the calculations were made in the first place. However, the attribute must remain a property, since i've got legacy code I need to support.
Maybe this is a job for decorators? If I'm not mistaken, decorator is a function that wraps another function, and I'm looking to wrap a property with some more calculations, and then present it as a property again, which seems like a similar idea... but I can't quite figure it out.
My Specific Problem
I've got a base class LogFile with an expensive-to-construct attribute .dataframe. I've implemented it as a property (with the property decorator), so it won't actually parse the log file until I ask for the dataframe. So far, it works great. I can construct a bunch (100+) LogFile objects, and use cheaper methods to filter and select only the important ones to parse. And whenever I'm using the same LogFile over and over, i only have to parse it the first time I access the dataframe.
Now I need to write a LogFile subclass, SensorLog, that adds some extra columns to the base class's dataframe attribute, but I can't quite figure out the syntax to call the super class's dataframe construction routines (without knowing anything about their internal workings), then operate on the resulting dataframe, and then cache/return it.
# Base Class - rules for parsing/interacting with data.
class LogFile(object):
def __init__(self, file_name):
# file name to find the log file
self.file_name = file_name
# non-public variable to cache results of parse()
self._dataframe = None
def parse(self):
with open(self.file_name) as infile:
...
...
# Complex rules to interpret the file
...
...
self._dataframe = pandas.DataFrame(stuff)
#property
def dataframe(self):
"""
Returns the dataframe; parses file if necessary. This works great!
"""
if self._dataframe is None:
self.parse()
return self._dataframe
#dataframe.setter
def dataframe(self,value):
self._dataframe = value
# Sub class - adds more information to data, but does't parse
# must preserve established .dataframe interface
class SensorLog(LogFile):
def __init__(self, file_name):
# Call the super's constructor
LogFile.__init__(self, file_name)
# SensorLog doesn't actually know about (and doesn't rely on) the ._dataframe cache, so it overrides it just in case.
self._dataframe = None
# THIS IS THE PART I CAN'T FIGURE OUT
# Here's my best guess, but it doesn't quite work:
#property
def dataframe(self):
# use parent class's getter, invoking the hidden parse function and any other operations LogFile might do.
self._dataframe = LogFile.dataframe.getter()
# Add additional calculated columns
self._dataframe['extra_stuff'] = 'hello world!'
return self._dataframe
#dataframe.setter
def dataframe(self, value):
self._dataframe = value
Now, when these classes are used in an interactive session, the user should be able to interact with either in the same way.
>>> log = LogFile('data.csv')
>>> print log.dataframe
#### DataFrame with 10 columns goes here ####
>>> sensor = SensorLog('data.csv')
>>> print sensor.dataframe
#### DataFrame with 11 columns goes here ####
I have lots of existing code that takes a LogFile instance which provides a .dataframe attribute and dos something interesting (mostly plotting). I would LOVE to have SensorLog instances present the same interface so they can use the same code. Is it possible to extend the super-class's dataframe getter to take advantage of existing routines? How? Or am I better off doing this a different way?
Thanks for reading that huge wall of text. You are an internet super hero, dear reader. Got any ideas?
You should be calling the superclass properties, not bypassing them via self._dataframe. Here's a generic example:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.__prop = None
#property
def prop(self):
return self.__prop
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
self.__prop = value
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
super(B, self).__init__()
#property
def prop(self):
value = A.prop.fget(self)
value['extra'] = 'stuff'
return value
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
A.prop.fset(self, value)
And using it:
b = B()
b.prop = dict((('a', 1), ('b', 2)))
print(b.prop)
Outputs:
{'a': 1, 'b': 2, 'extra': 'stuff'}
I would generally recommend placing side-effects in setters instead of getters, like this:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.__prop = None
#property
def prop(self):
return self.__prop
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
self.__prop = value
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
super(B, self).__init__()
#property
def prop(self):
return A.prop.fget(self)
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
value['extra'] = 'stuff'
A.prop.fset(self, value)
Having costly operations within a getter is also generally to be avoided (such as your parse method).
If I understand correctly what you want to do is call the parent's method from the child instance. The usual way to do that is by using the super built-in.
I've taken your tongue-in-cheek example and modified it to use super in order to show you:
class NormalMath(object):
def __init__(self, number):
self.number = number
def add_pi(self):
n = self.number
return n + 3.1415
class NewMath(NormalMath):
def add_pi(self):
# this will call NormalMath's add_pi with
normal_maths_pi_plus_num = super(NewMath, self).add_pi()
return int(normal_maths_pi_plus_num)
In your Log example, instead of calling:
self._dataframe = LogFile.dataframe.getter()
you should call:
self._dataframe = super(SensorLog, self).dataframe
You can read more about super here
Edit: Even thought the example I gave you deals with methods, to do the same with #properties shouldn't be a problem.
You have some possibilities to consider:
1/ Inherit from logfile and override parse in your derived sensor class. It should be possible to modify your methods that work on dataframe to work regardless of the number of members that dataframe has - as you are using pandas a lot of it is done for you.
2/ Make sensor an instance of logfile then provide its own parse method.
3/ Generalise parse, and possibly some of your other methods, to use a list of data descriptors and possibly a dictionary of methods/rules either set in your class initialiser or set by a methods.
4/ Look at either making more use of the methods already in pandas, or possibly, extending pandas to provide the missing methods if you and others think that they would be accepted into pandas as useful extensions.
Personally I think that you would find the benefits of options 3 or 4 to be the most powerful.
The problem is that you're missing a self going into the parent class. If your parent is a singleton then a #staticmethod should work.
class X():
x=1
#staticmethod
def getx():
return X.x
class Y(X):
y=2
def getyx(self):
return X.getx()+self.y
wx = Y()
wx.getyx()
3
I am programming a simulations for single neurons. Therefore I have to handle a lot of Parameters. Now the Idea is that I have two classes, one for a SingleParameter and a Collection of parameters. I use property() to access the parameter value easy and to make the code more readable. This works perfect for a sinlge parameter but I don't know how to implement it for the collection as I want to name the property in Collection after the SingleParameter. Here an example:
class SingleParameter(object):
def __init__(self, name, default_value=0, unit='not specified'):
self.name = name
self.default_value = default_value
self.unit = unit
self.set(default_value)
def get(self):
return self._v
def set(self, value):
self._v = value
v = property(fget=get, fset=set, doc='value of parameter')
par1 = SingleParameter(name='par1', default_value=10, unit='mV')
par2 = SingleParameter(name='par2', default_value=20, unit='mA')
# par1 and par2 I can access perfectly via 'p1.v = ...'
# or get its value with 'p1.v'
class Collection(object):
def __init__(self):
self.dict = {}
def __getitem__(self, name):
return self.dict[name] # get the whole object
# to get the value instead:
# return self.dict[name].v
def add(self, parameter):
self.dict[parameter.name] = parameter
# now comes the part that I don't know how to implement with property():
# It shoule be something like
# self.__dict__[parameter.name] = property(...) ?
col = Collection()
col.add(par1)
col.add(par2)
col['par1'] # gives the whole object
# Now here is what I would like to get:
# col.par1 -> should result like col['par1'].v
# col.par1 = 5 -> should result like col['par1'].v = 5
Other questions that I put to understand property():
Why do managed attributes just work for class attributes and not for instance attributes in python?
How can I assign a new class attribute via __dict__ in python?
Look at built-in functions getattr and setattr. You'll probably be a lot happier.
Using the same get/set functions for both classes forces you into an ugly hack with the argument list. Very sketchy, this is how I would do it:
In class SingleParameter, define get and set as usual:
def get(self):
return self._s
def set(self, value):
self._s = value
In class Collection, you cannot know the information until you create the property, so you define the metaset/metaget function and particularize them only later with a lambda function:
def metaget(self, par):
return par.s
def metaset(self, value, par):
par.s = value
def add(self, par):
self[par.name] = par
setattr(Collection, par.name,
property(
fget=lambda x : Collection.metaget(x, par),
fset=lambda x, y : Collection.metaset(x,y, par))
Properties are meant to dynamically evaluate attributes or to make them read-only. What you need is customizing attribute access. __getattr__ and __setattr__ do that really fine, and there's also __getattribute__ if __getattr__ is not enough.
See Python docs on customizing attribute access for details.
Have you looked at the traits package? It seems that you are reinventing the wheel here with your parameter classes. Traits also have additional features that might be useful for your type of application (incidently I know a person that happily uses traits in neural simulations).
Now I implemented a solution with set-/getattr:
class Collection(object):
...
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
if 'dict' in self.__dict__:
if name in self.dict:
self[name].v = value
else:
self.__dict__[name] = value
def __getattr__(self, name):
return self[name].v
There is one thing I quite don't like that much: The attributes are not in the __dict__. And if I have them there as well I would have a copy of the value - which can be dangerous...
Finally I succeded to implement the classes with property(). Thanks a lot for the advice. It took me quite a bit to work it out - but I can promise you that this exercise helps you to understand better pythons OOP.
I implemented it also with __getattr__ and __setattr__ but still don't know the advantages and disadvantages to the property-solution. But this seems to be worth another question. The property-solutions seems to be quit clean.
So here is the code:
class SingleParameter(object):
def __init__(self, name, default_value=0, unit='not specified'):
self.name = name
self.default_value = default_value
self.unit = unit
self.set(default_value)
def get(*args):
self = args[0]
print "get(): "
print args
return self._v
def set(*args):
print "set(): "
print args
self = args[0]
value = args[-1]
self._v = value
v = property(fget=get, fset=set, doc='value of parameter')
class Collection(dict):
# inheriting from dict saves the methods: __getitem__ and __init__
def add(self, par):
self[par.name] = par
# Now here comes the tricky part.
# (Note: this property call the get() and set() methods with one
# more argument than the property of SingleParameter)
setattr(Collection, par.name,
property(fget=par.get, fset=par.set))
# Applying the classes:
par1 = SingleParameter(name='par1', default_value=10, unit='mV')
par2 = SingleParameter(name='par2', default_value=20, unit='mA')
col = Collection()
col.add(par1)
col.add(par2)
# Setting parameter values:
par1.v = 13
col.par1 = 14
# Getting parameter values:
par1.v
col.par1
# checking identity:
par1.v is col.par1
# to access the whole object:
col['par1']
As I am new I am not sure how to move on:
how to treat follow up questions (like this itself):
get() is seems to be called twice - why?
oop-design: property vs. "__getattr__ & __setattr__" - when should I use what?
is it rude to check the own answer to the own question as accepted?
is it recommended to rename the title in order to put correlated questions or questions elaborated with the same example into the same context?
Other questions that I put to understand property():
Why do managed attributes just work for class attributes and not for instance attributes in python?
How can I assign a new class attribute via __dict__ in python?
I have a class that does something similar, but I did the following in the collection object:
setattr(self, par.name, par.v)