I have a module which wrap an json api for querying song cover/remix data with limits for number of requests per hour/minute. I'd like to keep an optional cache of json responses without forcing users to adjust a cache/context parameter every time. What is a good way of initializing a library/module in python? Or would you recommend I just do the explicit thing and use a cache named parameter in every call that eventually request json data?
I was thinking of doing
_cache = None
class LFU(object):
...
NO_CACHE, LFU = "NO_CACHE", "LFU"
def set_cache_strategy(strategy):
if _cache == NO_CACHE:
_cache = None
else:
_cache = LFU()
import second_hand_songs_wrapper as s
s.set_cache_strategy(s.LFU)
l1 = s.ShsLabel.get_from_resource_id(123)
l2 = s.ShsLabel.get_from_resource_id(123,use_cache=Fale)
edit:
I'm probably only planning on having two strategies one with/ one without a cache.
Other possible alternative initialization schemes I can think of of the top of my head include using enviromental variables, initializing _cache by hand in the user code to None/LFU(), and using explicit cache everywhere(possibly defaulting to having a cache).
Note the reason I don't set cache on an instance of the class is that I currently use a never instantiated class(use class functions + class state as a singleton) to abstract downloading the json data along with some convenience/methods to download certain urls. I could instantiate the downloader class but then I'd have to pass the instance explicitly to each function, or use another global variable for a convenience version of the class. The downloader class also keeps track of # of requests(website has limit per minute/hour) so having multiple downloader objects would cause more trouble.
There's nothing wrong in setting a default, even if that default is None. I would note though that having the pseudo-constants as well as a conditional (provided that's all you use the values for) is redundant. Try:
caching_strategies = {'NO_CACHE' : lambda: None,
'LFU' : LFU}
_cache = caching_strategies['NO_CACHE']
def set_cache_strategy(strategy):
_cache = caching_methods[strategy]()
If you want to provide a convenience method for the available strategies, just wrap caching_strategies.keys(). Really though, as far as your strategies go, you should probably have all your strategies inherit from some base strategy, and just create a no_cache strategy class that inherits from that and stubs all the methods for your standardized caching inteface.
Related
This is actually language agnostic, but I always prefer Python.
The builder design pattern is used to validate that a configuration is valid prior to creating an object, via delegation of the creation process.
Some code to clarify:
class A():
def __init__(self, m1, m2): # obviously more complex in life
self._m1 = m1
self._m2 = m2
class ABuilder():
def __init__():
self._m1 = None
self._m2 = None
def set_m1(self, m1):
self._m1 = m1
return self
def set_m2(self, m1):
self._m2 = m2
return self
def _validate(self):
# complicated validations
assert self._m1 < 1000
assert self._m1 < self._m2
def build(self):
self._validate()
return A(self._m1, self._m2)
My problem is similar, with an extra constraint that I can't re-create the object each time due to to performance limitations.
Instead, I want to only update an existing object.
Bad solutions I came up with:
I could do as suggested here and just use setters like so
class A():
...
set_m1(self, m1):
self._m1 = m1
# and so on
But this is bad because using setters
Beats the purpose of encapsulation
Beats the purpose of the buillder (now updater), which is supposed to validate that some complex configuration is preserved after the creation, or update in this case.
As I mentioned earlier, I can't recreate the object every time, as this is expensive and I only want to update some fields, or sub-fields, and still validate or sub-validate.
I could add update and validation methods to A and call those, but this beats the purpose of delegating the responsibility of updates, and is intractable in the number of fields.
class A():
...
def update1(m1):
pass # complex_logic1
def update2(m2):
pass # complex_logic2
def update12(m1, m2):
pass # complex_logic12
I could just force to update every single field in A in a method with optional parameters
class A():
...
def update("""list of all fields of A"""):
pass
Which again is not tractable, as this method will soon become a god method due to the many combinations possible.
Forcing the method to always accept changes in A, and validating in the Updater also can't work, as the Updater will need to look at A's internal state to make a descision, causing a circular dependency.
How can I delegate updating fields in my object A
in a way that
Doesn't break encapsulation of A
Actually delegates the responsibility of updating to another object
Is tractable as A becomes more complicated
I feel like I am missing something trivial to extend building to updating.
I am not sure I understand all of your concerns, but I want to try and answer your post. From what you have written I assume:
Validation is complex and multiple properties of an object must be checked to decide if any change to the object is valid.
The object must always be in a valid state. Changes that make the object invalid are not permitted.
It is too expensive to copy the object, make the change, validate the object, and then reject the change if the validation fails.
Move the validation logic out of the builder and into a separate class like ModelValidator with a validateModel(model) method
The first option is to use a command pattern.
Create abstract class or interface named Update (I don't think Python abstract classes/interfaces, but that's fine). The Update interface implements two methods, execute() and undo().
A concrete class has a name like UpdateAdress, UpdatePortfolio, or UpdatePaymentInfo.
Each concrete Update object also holds a reference to your model object.
The concrete classes hold the state needed to for a particular kind of update. Imageine these methods exist on the UpdateAddress class:
UpdateAddress
setStreetNumber(...)
setCity(...)
setPostcode(...)
setCountry(...)
The update object needs to hold both the current and new values of a property. Like:
setStreetNumber(aString):
self.oldStreetNumber = model.getStreetNumber
self.newStreetNumber = aString
When the execute method is called, the model is updated:
execute:
model.setStreetNumber(newStreetNumber)
model.setCity(newCity)
# Set postcode and country
if not ModelValidator.isValid(model):
self.undo()
raise ValidationError
and the undo method looks like:
undo:
model.setStreetNumber(oldStreetNumber)
model.setCity(oldCity)
# Set postcode and country
That is a lot of typing, but it would work. Mutating your model object is nicely encapsulated by different kinds of updates. You can execute or undo the changes by calling those methods on the update object. You can even store a list of update objects for multi-level undos and re-tries.
However, it is a lot of typing for the programmer. Consider using persistent data structures. Persistent data structures can be used to copy objects very quickly -- approximately constant time complexity. Here is a python library of persistent data structures.
Let's assume your data was in a persistent data structure version of a dict. The library I referenced calls it a PMap.
The implementation of the update classes can be simpler. Starting with the constructor:
UpdateAddress(pmap)
self.oldPmap = pmap
self.newPmap = pmap
The setters are easier:
setStreetNumber(aString):
self.newPmap = newPmap.set('streetNumber', aString)
Execute passes back a new instance of the model, with all the updates.
execute:
if ModelValidator.isValid(newModel):
return newModel;
else:
raise ValidationError
The original object has not changed at all, thanks to the magic of persistent data structures.
The best thing is to not do any of this. Instead, use an ORM or object database. That is the "enterprise grade" solution. These libraries give you sophisticated tools like transactions and object version history.
I'm writing a CLI to interact with elasticsearch using the elasticsearch-py library. I'm trying to mock elasticsearch-py functions in order to test my functions without calling my real cluster.
I read this question and this one but I still don't understand.
main.py
Escli inherits from cliff's App class
class Escli(App):
_es = elasticsearch5.Elasticsearch()
settings.py
from escli.main import Escli
class Settings:
def get(self, sections):
raise NotImplementedError()
class ClusterSettings(Settings):
def get(self, setting, persistency='transient'):
settings = Escli._es.cluster\
.get_settings(include_defaults=True, flat_settings=True)\
.get(persistency)\
.get(setting)
return settings
settings_test.py
import escli.settings
class TestClusterSettings(TestCase):
def setUp(self):
self.patcher = patch('elasticsearch5.Elasticsearch')
self.MockClass = self.patcher.start()
def test_get(self):
# Note this is an empty dict to show my point
# it will contain childs dict to allow my .get(persistency).get(setting)
self.MockClass.return_value.cluster.get_settings.return_value = {}
cluster_settings = escli.settings.ClusterSettings()
ret = cluster_settings.get('cluster.routing.allocation.node_concurrent_recoveries', persistency='transient')
# ret should contain a subset of my dict defined above
I want to have Escli._es.cluster.get_settings() to return what I want (a dict object) in order to not make the real HTTP call, but it keeps doing it.
What I know:
In order to mock an instance method I have to do something like
MagicMockObject.return_value.InstanceMethodName.return_value = ...
I cannot patch Escli._es.cluster.get_settings because Python tries to import Escli as module, which cannot work. So I'm patching the whole lib.
I desperately tried to put some return_value everywhere but I cannot understand why I can't mock that thing properly.
You should be mocking with respect to where you are testing. Based on the example provided, this means that the Escli class you are using in the settings.py module needs to be mocked with respect to settings.py. So, more practically, your patch call would look like this inside setUp instead:
self.patcher = patch('escli.settings.Escli')
With this, you are now mocking what you want in the right place based on how your tests are running.
Furthermore, to add more robustness to your testing, you might want to consider speccing for the Elasticsearch instance you are creating in order to validate that you are in fact calling valid methods that correlate to Elasticsearch. With that in mind, you can do something like this, instead:
self.patcher = patch('escli.settings.Escli', Mock(Elasticsearch))
To read a bit more about what exactly is meant by spec, check the patch section in the documentation.
As a final note, if you are interested in exploring the great world of pytest, there is a pytest-elasticsearch plugin created to assist with this.
I'm writing a test for a caching mechanism. The mechanism has two cache layers, the request cache and redis. The request cache uses Flask.g, an object that stores values for the duration of the request. It does this by creating a dictionary, on the Flask.g._cache attribute.
However, I think that the exact attribute is an implementation detail that my unit test shouldn't care about. I want to make sure it stores its values on Flask.g, but I don't care about how it does that. What would be a good way to test this?
I'm using the Python mock module, so I know I can mock out `Flask.g, but I'm not sure if there's a way to test whether there has been any property access on it, without caring about which property it is.
Is this even the right approach for tests like this?
Personally you shouldn't be mocking Flask.g if you are testing endpoints. since you would be creating a self.app (I may be unsure about this portion)
Secondly you will need to mock the redis client with something like this being the returned structure.
class RedisTestCase(object):
saved_dictionary = {}
def keys(self, pattern):
found_keys = []
for key in RedisTestCase.saved_dictionary: #loop keys for pattern
if pattern:
found_keys.append(key)
return found_keys
def delete(self, keys):
for key in keys:
if key in RedisTestCase.saved_dictionary:
del RedisTestCase.saved_dictionary[key]
def mset(self, items):
RedisTestCase.saved_dictionary.update(items)
def pipeline(self):
return RedisTestCase()
In the following example, cached_attr is used to get or set an attribute on a model instance when a database-expensive property (related_spam in the example) is called. In the example, I use cached_spam to save queries. I put print statements when setting and when getting values so that I could test it out. I tested it in a view by passing an Egg instance into the view and in the view using {{ egg.cached_spam }}, as well as other methods on the Egg model that make calls to cached_spam themselves. When I finished and tested it out the shell output in Django's development server showed that the attribute cache was missed several times, as well as successfully gotten several times. It seems to be inconsistent. With the same data, when I made small changes (as little as changing the print statement's string) and refreshed (with all the same data), different amounts of misses / successes happened. How and why is this happening? Is this code incorrect or highly problematic?
class Egg(models.Model):
... fields
#property
def related_spam(self):
# Each time this property is called the database is queried (expected).
return Spam.objects.filter(egg=self).all() # Spam has foreign key to Egg.
#property
def cached_spam(self):
# This should call self.related_spam the first time, and then return
# cached results every time after that.
return self.cached_attr('related_spam')
def cached_attr(self, attr):
"""This method (normally attached via an abstract base class, but put
directly on the model for this example) attempts to return a cached
version of a requested attribute, and calls the actual attribute when
the cached version isn't available."""
try:
value = getattr(self, '_p_cache_{0}'.format(attr))
print('GETTING - {0}'.format(value))
except AttributeError:
value = getattr(self, attr)
print('SETTING - {0}'.format(value))
setattr(self, '_p_cache_{0}'.format(attr), value)
return value
Nothing wrong with your code, as far as it goes. The problem probably isn't there, but in how you use that code.
The main thing to realise is that model instances don't have identity. That means that if you instantiate an Egg object somewhere, and a different one somewhere else, even if they refer to the same underlying database row they won't share internal state. So calling cached_attr on one won't cause the cache to be populated in the other.
For example, assuming you have a RelatedObject class with a ForeignKey to Egg:
my_first_egg = Egg.objects.get(pk=1)
my_related_object = RelatedObject.objects.get(egg__pk=1)
my_second_egg = my_related_object.egg
Here my_first_egg and my_second_egg both refer to the database row with pk 1, but they are not the same object:
>>> my_first_egg.pk == my_second_egg.pk
True
>>> my_first_egg is my_second_egg
False
So, filling the cache on my_first_egg doesn't fill it on my_second_egg.
And, of course, objects won't persist across requests (unless they're specifically made global, which is horrible), so the cache won't persist either.
Http servers that scale are shared-nothing; you can't rely on anything being singleton. To share state, you need to connect to a special-purpose service.
Django's caching support is appropriate for your use case. It isn't necessarily a global singleton either; if you use locmem://, it will be process-local, which could be the more efficient choice.
I love CherryPy's API for sessions, except for one detail. Instead of saying cherrypy.session["spam"] I'd like to be able to just say session["spam"].
Unfortunately, I can't simply have a global from cherrypy import session in one of my modules, because the cherrypy.session object isn't created until the first time a page request is made. Is there some way to get CherryPy to initialize its session object immediately instead of on the first page request?
I have two ugly alternatives if the answer is no:
First, I can do something like this
def import_session():
global session
while not hasattr(cherrypy, "session"):
sleep(0.1)
session = cherrypy.session
Thread(target=import_session).start()
This feels like a big kludge, but I really hate writing cherrypy.session["spam"] every time, so to me it's worth it.
My second solution is to do something like
class SessionKludge:
def __getitem__(self, name):
return cherrypy.session[name]
def __setitem__(self, name, val):
cherrypy.session[name] = val
session = SessionKludge()
but this feels like an even bigger kludge and I'd need to do more work to implement the other dictionary functions such as .get
So I'd definitely prefer a simple way to initialize the object myself. Does anyone know how to do this?
For CherryPy 3.1, you would need to find the right subclass of Session, run its 'setup' classmethod, and then set cherrypy.session to a ThreadLocalProxy. That all happens in cherrypy.lib.sessions.init, in the following chunks:
# Find the storage class and call setup (first time only).
storage_class = storage_type.title() + 'Session'
storage_class = globals()[storage_class]
if not hasattr(cherrypy, "session"):
if hasattr(storage_class, "setup"):
storage_class.setup(**kwargs)
# Create cherrypy.session which will proxy to cherrypy.serving.session
if not hasattr(cherrypy, "session"):
cherrypy.session = cherrypy._ThreadLocalProxy('session')
Reducing (replace FileSession with the subclass you want):
FileSession.setup(**kwargs)
cherrypy.session = cherrypy._ThreadLocalProxy('session')
The "kwargs" consist of "timeout", "clean_freq", and any subclass-specific entries from tools.sessions.* config.