I am looking for ways / best practices on testing methods defined in an abstract base class. One thing I can think of directly is performing the test on all concrete subclasses of the base class, but that seems excessive at some times.
Consider this example:
import abc
class Abstract(object):
__metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta
#abc.abstractproperty
def id(self):
return
#abc.abstractmethod
def foo(self):
print "foo"
def bar(self):
print "bar"
Is it possible to test bar without doing any subclassing?
In newer versions of Python you can use unittest.mock.patch()
class MyAbcClassTest(unittest.TestCase):
#patch.multiple(MyAbcClass, __abstractmethods__=set())
def test(self):
self.instance = MyAbcClass() # Ha!
Here is what I have found: If you set __abstractmethods__ attribute to be an empty set you'll be able to instantiate abstract class. This behaviour is specified in PEP 3119:
If the resulting __abstractmethods__ set is non-empty, the class is considered abstract, and attempts to instantiate it will raise TypeError.
So you just need to clear this attribute for the duration of tests.
>>> import abc
>>> class A(metaclass = abc.ABCMeta):
... #abc.abstractmethod
... def foo(self): pass
You cant instantiate A:
>>> A()
Traceback (most recent call last):
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class A with abstract methods foo
If you override __abstractmethods__ you can:
>>> A.__abstractmethods__=set()
>>> A() #doctest: +ELLIPSIS
<....A object at 0x...>
It works both ways:
>>> class B(object): pass
>>> B() #doctest: +ELLIPSIS
<....B object at 0x...>
>>> B.__abstractmethods__={"foo"}
>>> B()
Traceback (most recent call last):
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class B with abstract methods foo
You can also use unittest.mock (from 3.3) to override temporarily ABC behaviour.
>>> class A(metaclass = abc.ABCMeta):
... #abc.abstractmethod
... def foo(self): pass
>>> from unittest.mock import patch
>>> p = patch.multiple(A, __abstractmethods__=set())
>>> p.start()
{}
>>> A() #doctest: +ELLIPSIS
<....A object at 0x...>
>>> p.stop()
>>> A()
Traceback (most recent call last):
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class A with abstract methods foo
As properly put by lunaryon, it is not possible. The very purpose of ABCs containing abstract methods is that they are not instantiatable as declared.
However, it is possible to create a utility function that introspects an ABC, and creates a dummy, non abstract class on the fly. This function could be called directly inside your test method/function and spare you of having to wite boiler plate code on the test file just for testing a few methods.
def concreter(abclass):
"""
>>> import abc
>>> class Abstract(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
... #abc.abstractmethod
... def bar(self):
... return None
>>> c = concreter(Abstract)
>>> c.__name__
'dummy_concrete_Abstract'
>>> c().bar() # doctest: +ELLIPSIS
(<abc_utils.Abstract object at 0x...>, (), {})
"""
if not "__abstractmethods__" in abclass.__dict__:
return abclass
new_dict = abclass.__dict__.copy()
for abstractmethod in abclass.__abstractmethods__:
#replace each abc method or property with an identity function:
new_dict[abstractmethod] = lambda x, *args, **kw: (x, args, kw)
#creates a new class, with the overriden ABCs:
return type("dummy_concrete_%s" % abclass.__name__, (abclass,), new_dict)
You can use multiple inheritance practice to have access to the implemented methods of the abstract class. Obviously following such design decision depends on the structure of the abstract class since you need to implement abstract methods (at least bring the signature) in your test case.
Here is the example for your case:
class Abstract(object):
__metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta
#abc.abstractproperty
def id(self):
return
#abc.abstractmethod
def foo(self):
print("foo")
def bar(self):
print("bar")
class AbstractTest(unittest.TestCase, Abstract):
def foo(self):
pass
def test_bar(self):
self.bar()
self.assertTrue(1==1)
No, it's not. The very purpose of abc is to create classes that cannot be instantiated unless all abstract attributes are overridden with concrete implementations. Hence you need to derive from the abstract base class and override all abstract methods and properties.
Perhaps a more compact version of the concreter proposed by #jsbueno could be:
def concreter(abclass):
class concreteCls(abclass):
pass
concreteCls.__abstractmethods__ = frozenset()
return type('DummyConcrete' + abclass.__name__, (concreteCls,), {})
The resulting class still has all original abstract methods (which can be now called, even if this is not likely to be useful...) and can be mocked as needed.
Related
assume following class definition:
class A:
def f(self):
return 'this is f'
#staticmethod
def g():
return 'this is g'
a = A()
So f is a normal method and g is a static method.
Now, how can I check if the funcion objects a.f and a.g are static or not? Is there a "isstatic" funcion in Python?
I have to know this because I have lists containing many different function (method) objects, and to call them I have to know if they are expecting "self" as a parameter or not.
Lets experiment a bit:
>>> import types
>>> class A:
... def f(self):
... return 'this is f'
... #staticmethod
... def g():
... return 'this is g'
...
>>> a = A()
>>> a.f
<bound method A.f of <__main__.A instance at 0x800f21320>>
>>> a.g
<function g at 0x800eb28c0>
>>> isinstance(a.g, types.FunctionType)
True
>>> isinstance(a.f, types.FunctionType)
False
So it looks like you can use types.FunctionType to distinguish static methods.
Your approach seems a bit flawed to me, but you can check class attributes:
(in Python 2.7):
>>> type(A.f)
<type 'instancemethod'>
>>> type(A.g)
<type 'function'>
or instance attributes in Python 3.x
>>> a = A()
>>> type(a.f)
<type 'method'>
>>> type(a.g)
<type 'function'>
To supplement the answers here, in Python 3 the best way is like so:
import inspect
class Test:
#staticmethod
def test(): pass
isstatic = isinstance(inspect.getattr_static(Test, "test"), staticmethod)
We use getattr_static rather than getattr, since getattr will retrieve the bound method or function, not the staticmethod class object. You can do a similar check for classmethod types and property's (e.g. attributes defined using the #property decorator)
Note that even though it is a staticmethod, don't assume it was defined inside the class. The method source may have originated from another class. To get the true source, you can look at the underlying function's qualified name and module. For example:
class A:
#staticmethod:
def test(): pass
class B: pass
B.test = inspect.getattr_static(A, "test")
print("true source: ", B.test.__qualname__)
Technically, any method can be used as "static" methods, so long as they are called on the class itself, so just keep that in mind. For example, this will work perfectly fine:
class Test:
def test():
print("works!")
Test.test()
That example will not work with instances of Test, since the method will be bound to the instance and called as Test.test(self) instead.
Instance and class methods can be used as static methods as well in some cases, so long as the first arg is handled properly.
class Test:
def test(self):
print("works!")
Test.test(None)
Perhaps another rare case is a staticmethod that is also bound to a class or instance. For example:
class Test:
#classmethod
def test(cls): pass
Test.static_test = staticmethod(Test.test)
Though technically it is a staticmethod, it is really behaving like a classmethod. So in your introspection, you may consider checking the __self__ (recursively on __func__) to see if the method is bound to a class or instance.
I happens to have a module to solve this. And it's Python2/3 compatible solution. And it allows to test with method inherit from parent class.
Plus, this module can also test:
regular attribute
property style method
regular method
staticmethod
classmethod
For example:
class Base(object):
attribute = "attribute"
#property
def property_method(self):
return "property_method"
def regular_method(self):
return "regular_method"
#staticmethod
def static_method():
return "static_method"
#classmethod
def class_method(cls):
return "class_method"
class MyClass(Base):
pass
Here's the solution for staticmethod only. But I recommend to use the module posted here.
import inspect
def is_static_method(klass, attr, value=None):
"""Test if a value of a class is static method.
example::
class MyClass(object):
#staticmethod
def method():
...
:param klass: the class
:param attr: attribute name
:param value: attribute value
"""
if value is None:
value = getattr(klass, attr)
assert getattr(klass, attr) == value
for cls in inspect.getmro(klass):
if inspect.isroutine(value):
if attr in cls.__dict__:
bound_value = cls.__dict__[attr]
if isinstance(bound_value, staticmethod):
return True
return False
Why bother? You can just call g like you call f:
a = A()
a.f()
a.g()
I always thought one should inherit from abc.ABC when one does not want the class to be instantiated. But I've just realized that if a class has an #abstractmethod then one can also not instanciate it.
Is there any other reason to inherit from ABC?
Unless you use abc.ABCMeta as the metaclass for your class (either explicitly or by inheriting from abc.ABC), using abstractmethod doesn't really do anything.
>>> from abc import abstractmethod, ABC
>>> class Foo:
... #abstractmethod
... def bar(self):
... pass
...
>>> f = Foo()
>>>
Likewise, using ABCMeta doesn't mean much unless you mark at least one method as abstract:
>>> class Bar(ABC):
... pass
...
>>> b = Bar()
>>>
It's the combination of the two that allows a class to be (nominally) uninstantiable:
>>> class Baz(ABC):
... #abstractmethod
... def m(self):
... pass
...
>>> b = Baz()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Baz with abstract methods m
>>>
(Even then, note that all #abstractmethod does is add the decorated method to a set which the metaclass machinery consults when trying to instantiate the class. It is trivial to defeat that machinery:
>>> Baz.__abstractmethods__
frozenset({'m'})
>>> Baz.__abstractmethods__ = set()
>>> b = Baz()
>>>
)
Note that ABC itself is a trivial class that uses ABCMeta as its metaclass, which makes any of its descendants use it as well.
# Docstring omitted; see
# https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/3.7/Lib/abc.py#L166
# for the original
class ABC(metaclass=ABCMeta):
__slots__ = ()
What chepner said, and also readability. Inheriting from ABC makes it clear to your readers what you're up to.
>>> from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
>>>
>>> class Foo:
... #abstractmethod
... def f(self):
... pass
...
>>> class Bar(Foo):
... pass
...
>>> Bar().f()
>>>
>>> class Baz(ABC):
... #abstractmethod
... def f(self):
... pass
...
>>> class Quux(Baz):
... pass
...
>>> Quux().f()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Quux with abstract methods f
I found multiple (slightly different) ways to define abstract classes in Python. I read the documentation and also could not find an answer here on stackoverflow.
The main difference between the three examples (see code below) is:
A sets a new metaclass abc.ABCMeta explicitly
B inherits from abc.ABC
C inherits from objects but defines #abc.abstractmethod classes
It seems that A and B are not different (i.e. also B has the new metaclass abc.ABCMeta). However, class C remains of type type.
What are the impacts of not defining a metaclass for C? When is it necessary to define the metaclass or is it wrong/bad style to not define the abc.ABCMeta metaclass for an abstract class? Nonetheless, the class C seems to behave as I expect from an ABC.
import abc
class A(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
# Alternatively put __metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta here
#abc.abstractmethod
def foo(self):
raise NotImplementedError
class B(abc.ABC):
#abc.abstractmethod
def foo(self):
raise NotImplementedError
class C(object):
#abc.abstractmethod
def foo(self):
raise NotImplementedError
class Aimpl(A):
def foo(self):
print("Aimpl")
class Bimpl(B):
def foo(self):
print("Bimpl")
class Cimpl(C):
#def foo(self):
# print("Cimpl")
pass
Aimpl().foo() # Aimpl
print(isinstance(Aimpl, A)) # False
print(issubclass(Aimpl, A)) # True
print(isinstance(Aimpl, abc.ABCMeta)) # True
print(type(A)) # <class 'abc.ABCMeta'>
print("---")
Bimpl().foo() # Bimpl
print(isinstance(Bimpl, B)) # False
print(issubclass(Bimpl, B)) # True
print(isinstance(Bimpl, abc.ABCMeta)) # True
print(type(B)) # <class 'abc.ABCMeta'>
print("---")
Cimpl().foo() # Cimpl
print(isinstance(Cimpl, C)) # False
print(issubclass(Cimpl, C)) # True
print(isinstance(Cimpl, abc.ABCMeta)) # False
print(type(C)) # <class 'type'>
print("---")
The abc.ABCMeta class is necessary to actually enforce the abstractmethod behaviour. Its itention is to disallow instantiation of any classes which do not implement the abstract method. The decorator itself cannot enforce that, the metaclass is enforcing the decorator upon instantiation:
class Foo:
#abstractmethod
def bar(self):
pass
Foo() # works
However:
class Foo(metaclass=ABCMeta):
#abstractmethod
def bar(self):
pass
Foo()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<input>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Foo with abstract methods bar
So, without the metaclass, the abstractmethod decorator doesn't do anything.
abc.ABC is merely a shorthand so you can do Foo(ABC) instead of Foo(metaclass=ABCMeta), that is all:
A helper class that has ABCMeta as its metaclass. With this class,
an abstract base class can be created by simply deriving from ABC
avoiding sometimes confusing metaclass usage [..]
https://docs.python.org/3/library/abc.html#abc.ABC
I have a code like this:
class Base:
def __init__(self):
pass
def new_obj(self):
return Base() # ← return Derived()
class Derived(Base):
def __init__(self):
pass
In the line with a comment I actually want not exactly the Derived object, but any object of class that self really is.
Here is a real-life example from Mercurial.
How to do that?
def new_obj(self):
return self.__class__()
I can't think of a really good reason to do this, but as D.Shawley pointed out:
def new_obj(self):
return self.__class__()
will do it.
That's because when calling a method on a derived class, if it doesn't exist on that class, it will use the method resolution order to figure out which method to call on its inheritance chain. In this case, you've only got one, so it's going to call Base.new_obj and pass in the instance as the first argument (i.e. self).
All instances have a __class__ attribute, that refers to the class that they are an instance of. So given
class Base:
def new_obj(self):
return self.__class__()
class Derived(Base): pass
derived = Derived()
The following lines are functionally equivalent:
derived.new_obj()
# or
Base.new_obj(derived)
You may have encountered a relative of this if you've either forgotten to add the self parameter to your function declaration, or not provided enough arguments to a function and seen a stack trace that looks like this:
>>> f.bar()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: bar() takes exactly 2 arguments (1 given)
You can use a classmethod:
class Base:
def __init__(self):
pass
#classmethod
def new_obj(cls):
return cls()
class Derived(Base):
def __init__(self):
pass
>>> b = Base()
>>> b.new_obj()
<__main__.Base at 0x10fc12208>
>>> d = Derived()
>>> d.new_obj()
<__main__.Derived at 0x10fdfce80>
You can also do this with a class method, which you create with a decorator.
In [1]: class Base:
...: #classmethod
...: def new_obj(cls):
...: return cls()
...:
In [2]: class Derived(Base): pass
In [3]: print type(Base.new_obj())
<type 'instance'>
In [4]: print Base.new_obj().__class__
__main__.Base
In [5]: print Derived.new_obj().__class__
__main__.Derived
Incidentally (you may know this), you don't have to create __init__ methods if you don't do anything with them.
This is the setup I want:
A should be an abstract base class with a static & abstract method f(). B should inherit from A. Requirements:
1. You should not be able to instantiate A
2. You should not be able to instantiate B, unless it implements a static f()
Taking inspiration from this question, I've tried a couple of approaches. With these definitions:
class abstractstatic(staticmethod):
__slots__ = ()
def __init__(self, function):
super(abstractstatic, self).__init__(function)
function.__isabstractmethod__ = True
__isabstractmethod__ = True
class A:
__metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta
#abstractstatic
def f():
pass
class B(A):
def f(self):
print 'f'
class A2:
__metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta
#staticmethod
#abc.abstractmethod
def f():
pass
class B2(A2):
def f(self):
print 'f'
Here A2 and B2 are defined using usual Python conventions and A & B are defined using the way suggested in this answer. Following are some operations I tried and the results that were undesired.
With classes A/B:
>>> B().f()
f
#This should have thrown, since B doesn't implement a static f()
With classes A2/B2:
>>> A2()
<__main__.A2 object at 0x105beea90>
#This should have thrown since A2 should be an uninstantiable abstract class
>>> B2().f()
f
#This should have thrown, since B2 doesn't implement a static f()
Since neither of these approaches give me the output I want, how do I achieve what I want?
You can't do what you want with just ABCMeta. ABC enforcement doesn't do any type checking, only the presence of an attribute with the correct name is enforced.
Take for example:
>>> from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod, abstractproperty
>>> class Abstract(object):
... __metaclass__ = ABCMeta
... #abstractmethod
... def foo(self): pass
... #abstractproperty
... def bar(self): pass
...
>>> class Concrete(Abstract):
... foo = 'bar'
... bar = 'baz'
...
>>> Concrete()
<__main__.Concrete object at 0x104b4df90>
I was able to construct Concrete() even though both foo and bar are simple attributes.
The ABCMeta metaclass only tracks how many objects are left with the __isabstractmethod__ attribute being true; when creating a class from the metaclass (ABCMeta.__new__ is called) the cls.__abstractmethods__ attribute is then set to a frozenset object with all the names that are still abstract.
type.__new__ then tests for that frozenset and throws a TypeError if you try to create an instance.
You'd have to produce your own __new__ method here; subclass ABCMeta and add type checking in a new __new__ method. That method should look for __abstractmethods__ sets on the base classes, find the corresponding objects with the __isabstractmethod__ attribute in the MRO, then does typechecking on the current class attributes.
This'd mean that you'd throw the exception when defining the class, not an instance, however. For that to work you'd add a __call__ method to your ABCMeta subclass and have that throw the exception based on information gathered by your own __new__ method about what types were wrong; a similar two-stage process as what ABCMeta and type.__new__ do at the moment. Alternatively, update the __abstractmethods__ set on the class to add any names that were implemented but with the wrong type and leave it to type.__new__ to throw the exception.
The following implementation takes that last tack; add names back to __abstractmethods__ if the implemented type doesn't match (using a mapping):
from types import FunctionType
class ABCMetaTypeCheck(ABCMeta):
_typemap = { # map abstract type to expected implementation type
abstractproperty: property,
abstractstatic: staticmethod,
# abstractmethods return function objects
FunctionType: FunctionType,
}
def __new__(mcls, name, bases, namespace):
cls = super(ABCMetaTypeCheck, mcls).__new__(mcls, name, bases, namespace)
wrong_type = set()
seen = set()
abstractmethods = cls.__abstractmethods__
for base in bases:
for name in getattr(base, "__abstractmethods__", set()):
if name in seen or name in abstractmethods:
continue # still abstract or later overridden
value = base.__dict__.get(name) # bypass descriptors
if getattr(value, "__isabstractmethod__", False):
seen.add(name)
expected = mcls._typemap[type(value)]
if not isinstance(namespace[name], expected):
wrong_type.add(name)
if wrong_type:
cls.__abstractmethods__ = abstractmethods | frozenset(wrong_type)
return cls
With this metaclass you get your expected output:
>>> class Abstract(object):
... __metaclass__ = ABCMetaTypeCheck
... #abstractmethod
... def foo(self): pass
... #abstractproperty
... def bar(self): pass
... #abstractstatic
... def baz(): pass
...
>>> class ConcreteWrong(Abstract):
... foo = 'bar'
... bar = 'baz'
... baz = 'spam'
...
>>> ConcreteWrong()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class ConcreteWrong with abstract methods bar, baz, foo
>>>
>>> class ConcreteCorrect(Abstract):
... def foo(self): return 'bar'
... #property
... def bar(self): return 'baz'
... #staticmethod
... def baz(): return 'spam'
...
>>> ConcreteCorrect()
<__main__.ConcreteCorrect object at 0x104ce1d10>