We Keep Coding

How to decorate a python class and override a method?

I have a class
class A:
def sample_method():
I would like to decorate class A sample_method() and override the contents of sample_method()
class DecoratedA(A):
def sample_method():
The setup above resembles inheritance, but I need to keep the preexisting instance of class A when the decorated function is used.
a # preexisting instance of class A
decorated_a = DecoratedA(a)
decorated_a.functionInClassA() #functions in Class A called as usual with preexisting instance
decorated_a.sample_method() #should call the overwritten sample_method() defined in DecoratedA
What is the proper way to go about this?

There isn't a straightforward way to do what you're asking. Generally, after an instance has been created, it's too late to mess with the methods its class defines.
There are two options you have, as far as I see it. Either you create a wrapper or proxy object for your pre-existing instance, or you modify the instance to change its behavior.
A proxy defers most behavior to the object itself, while only adding (or overriding) some limited behavior of its own:
class Proxy:
def __init__(self, obj):
self.obj = obj
def overridden_method(self): # add your own limited behavior for a few things
do_stuff()
def __getattr__(self, name): # and hand everything else off to the other object
return getattr(self.obj, name)
__getattr__ isn't perfect here, it can only work for regular methods, not special __dunder__ methods that are often looked up directly in the class itself. If you want your proxy to match all possible behavior, you probably need to add things like __add__ and __getitem__, but that might not be necessary in your specific situation (it depends on what A does).
As for changing the behavior of the existing object, one approach is to write your subclass, and then change the existing object's class to be the subclass. This is a little sketchy, since you won't have ever initialized the object as the new class, but it might work if you're only modifying method behavior.
class ModifiedA(A):
def overridden_method(self): # do the override in a normal subclass
do_stuff()
def modify_obj(obj): # then change an existing object's type in place!
obj.__class__ = ModifiedA # this is not terribly safe, but it can work
You could also consider adding an instance variable that would shadow the method you want to override, rather than modifying __class__. Writing the function could be a little tricky, since it won't get bound to the object automatically when called (that only happens for functions that are attributes of a class, not attributes of an instance), but you could probably do the binding yourself (with partial or lambda if you need to access self.

First, why not just define it from the beginning, how you want it, instead of decorating it?
Second, why not decorate the method itself?
To answer the question:
You can reassign it
class A:
def sample_method(): ...
pass
A.sample_method = DecoratedA.sample_method;
but that affects every instance.
Another solution is to reassign the method for just one object.
import functools;
a.sample_method = functools.partial(DecoratedA.sample_method, a);
Another solution is to (temporarily) change the type of an existing object.
a = A();
a.__class__ = DecoratedA;
a.sample_method();
a.__class__ = A;

Difference between foo.bar() and bar(foo)?

Consider:
class Parent():
def __init__(self, last_name, eye_color):
self.last_name = last_name
self.eye_color = eye_color
def show_info(self):
print("Last Name - "+self.last_name)
print("Eye Color - "+self.eye_color)
billy_cyrus = Parent("Cyrus", "blue")
The above is from the Udacity Python course. I discovered I'm able to call show_info for instance billy_cyrus using either of the following:
billy_cyrus.show_info()
Parent.show_info(billy_cyrus)
I'm curious as to why. Is there a difference between the two methods? If so when would one be used vs. the other? I'm using Python 3.6 if that matters.

In terms of just calling the method, there is no difference most of the time. In terms of how the underlying machinery, works, there is a bit of a difference.
Since show_info is a method, it is a descriptor in the class. That means that when you access it through an instance in which it is not shadowed by another attribute, the . operator calls __get__ on the descriptor to create a bound method for that instance. A bound method is basically a closure that passes in the self parameter for you before any of the other arguments you supply. You can see the binding happen like this:
>>> billy_cyrus.show_info
<bound method Parent.show_info of <__main__.Parent object at 0x7f7598b14be0>>
A different closure is created every time you use the . operator on a class method.
If you access the method through the class object, on the other hand, it does not get bound. The method is a descriptor, which is just a regular attribute of the class:
>>> Parent.show_info
<function __main__.Parent.show_info>
You can simulate the exact behavior of binding a method before calling it by calling its __get__ yourself:
>>> bound_meth = Parent.show_info.__get__(billy_cyrus, type(billy_cyrus))
>>> bound_meth
<bound method Parent.show_info of <__main__.Parent object at 0x7f7598b14be0>>
Again, this will not make any difference to you in 99.99% of cases, since functionally bound_meth() and Parent.bound_meth(billy_cyrus) end up calling the same underlying function object with the same parameters.
Where it matters
There are a couple of places where it matters how you call a class method. One common use case is when you override a method, but want to use the definition provided in the parent class. For example, say I have a class that I made "immutable" by overriding __setattr__. I can still set attributes on the instance, as in the __init__ method shown below:
class Test:
def __init__(self, a):
object.__setattr__(self, 'a', a)
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
raise ValueError('I am immutable!')
If I tried to do a normal call to __setattr__ in __init__ by doing self.a = a, a ValueError would be raised every time. But by using object.__setattr__, I can bypass this limitation. Alternatively, I could do super().__setattr__('a', a) for the same effect, or self.__dict__['a'] = a for a very similar one.
#Silvio Mayolo's answer has another good example, where you would deliberately want to use the class method as a function that could be applied to many objects.
Another place it matters (although not in terms of calling methods), is when you use other common descriptors like property. Unlike methods, properties are data-descriptors. This means that they define a __set__ method (and optionally __delete__) in addition to __get__. A property creates a virtual attribute whose getter and setter are arbitrarily complex functions instead of just simple assignments. To properly use a property, you have to do it through the instance. For example:
class PropDemo:
def __init__(self, x=0):
self.x = x
#property
def x(self):
return self.__dict__['x']
#x.setter
def x(self, value):
if value < 0:
raise ValueError('Not negatives, please!')
self.__dict__['x'] = value
Now you can do something like
>>> inst = PropDemo()
>>> inst.x
0
>>> inst.x = 3
>>> inst.x
3
If you try to access the property through the class, you can get the underlying descriptor object since it will be an unbound attribute:
>>> PropDemo.x
<property at 0x7f7598af00e8>
On a side note, hiding attributes with the same name as a property in __dict__ is a neat trick that works because data descriptors in a class __dict__ trump entries in the instance __dict__, even though instance __dict__ entries trump non-data-descriptors in a class.
Where it can Get Weird
You can override a class method with an instance method in Python. That would mean that type(foo).bar(foo) and foo.bar() don't call the same underlying function at all. This is irrelevant for magic methods because they always use the former invocation, but it can make a big difference for normal method calls.
There are a few ways to override a method on an instance. The one I find most intuitive is to set the instance attribute to a bound method. Here is an example of a modified billy_cyrus, assuming the definition of Parent in the original question:
def alt_show_info(self):
print('Another version of', self)
billy_cyrus.show_info = alt_show_info.__get__(billy_cyrus, Parent)
In this case, calling the method on the instance vs the class would have completely different results. This only works because methods are non-data descriptors by the way. If they were data descriptors (with a __set__ method), the assignment billy_cyrus.show_info = alt_show_info.__get__(billy_cyrus, Parent) would not override anything but would instead just redirect to __set__, and manually setting it in b
billy_cyrus's __dict__ would just get it ignored, as happens with a property.
Additional Resources
Here are a couple of resources on descriptors:
Python Reference - Descriptor Protocol: http://python-reference.readthedocs.io/en/latest/docs/dunderdsc/
(Official?) Descriptor HowTo Guide: https://docs.python.org/3/howto/descriptor.html

There is no semantic difference between the two. It's entirely a matter of style. You would generally use billy_cyrus.show_info() in normal use, but the fact that the second approach is allowed permits you to use Parent.show_info to get the method as a first-class object itself. If that was not allowed, then it would not be possible (or at least, it would be fairly difficult) to do something like this.
function = Parent.show_info
so_many_billy_cyrus = [billy_cyrus, billy_cyrus, billy_cyrus]
map(function, so_many_billy_cyrus)

Find class in which a method is defined

I want to figure out the type of the class in which a certain method is defined (in essence, the enclosing static scope of the method), from within the method itself, and without specifying it explicitly, e.g.
class SomeClass:
def do_it(self):
cls = enclosing_class() # <-- I need this.
print(cls)
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
obj = DerivedClass()
# I want this to print 'SomeClass'.
obj.do_it()
Is this possible?

If you need this in Python 3.x, please see my other answer—the closure cell __class__ is all you need.
If you need to do this in CPython 2.6-2.7, RickyA's answer is close, but it doesn't work, because it relies on the fact that this method is not overriding any other method of the same name. Try adding a Foo.do_it method in his answer, and it will print out Foo, not SomeClass
The way to solve that is to find the method whose code object is identical to the current frame's code object:
def do_it(self):
mro = inspect.getmro(self.__class__)
method_code = inspect.currentframe().f_code
method_name = method_code.co_name
for base in reversed(mro):
try:
if getattr(base, method_name).func_code is method_code:
print(base.__name__)
break
except AttributeError:
pass
(Note that the AttributeError could be raised either by base not having something named do_it, or by base having something named do_it that isn't a function, and therefore doesn't have a func_code. But we don't care which; either way, base is not the match we're looking for.)
This may work in other Python 2.6+ implementations. Python does not require frame objects to exist, and if they don't, inspect.currentframe() will return None. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't require code objects to exist either, which means func_code could be None.
Meanwhile, if you want to use this in both 2.7+ and 3.0+, change that func_code to __code__, but that will break compatibility with earlier 2.x.
If you need CPython 2.5 or earlier, you can just replace the inpsect calls with the implementation-specific CPython attributes:
def do_it(self):
mro = self.__class__.mro()
method_code = sys._getframe().f_code
method_name = method_code.co_name
for base in reversed(mro):
try:
if getattr(base, method_name).func_code is method_code:
print(base.__name__)
break
except AttributeError:
pass
Note that this use of mro() will not work on classic classes; if you really want to handle those (which you really shouldn't want to…), you'll have to write your own mro function that just walks the hierarchy old-school… or just copy it from the 2.6 inspect source.
This will only work in Python 2.x implementations that bend over backward to be CPython-compatible… but that includes at least PyPy. inspect should be more portable, but then if an implementation is going to define frame and code objects with the same attributes as CPython's so it can support all of inspect, there's not much good reason not to make them attributes and provide sys._getframe in the first place…

First, this is almost certainly a bad idea, and not the way you want to solve whatever you're trying to solve but refuse to tell us about…
That being said, there is a very easy way to do it, at least in Python 3.0+. (If you need 2.x, see my other answer.)
Notice that Python 3.x's super pretty much has to be able to do this somehow. How else could super() mean super(THISCLASS, self), where that THISCLASS is exactly what you're asking for?*
Now, there are lots of ways that super could be implemented… but PEP 3135 spells out a specification for how to implement it:
Every function will have a cell named __class__ that contains the class object that the function is defined in.
This isn't part of the Python reference docs, so some other Python 3.x implementation could do it a different way… but at least as of 3.2+, they still have to have __class__ on functions, because Creating the class object explicitly says:
This class object is the one that will be referenced by the zero-argument form of super(). __class__ is an implicit closure reference created by the compiler if any methods in a class body refer to either __class__ or super. This allows the zero argument form of super() to correctly identify the class being defined based on lexical scoping, while the class or instance that was used to make the current call is identified based on the first argument passed to the method.
(And, needless to say, this is exactly how at least CPython 3.0-3.5 and PyPy3 2.0-2.1 implement super anyway.)
In [1]: class C:
...: def f(self):
...: print(__class__)
In [2]: class D(C):
...: pass
In [3]: D().f()
<class '__main__.C'>
Of course this gets the actual class object, not the name of the class, which is apparently what you were after. But that's easy; you just need to decide whether you mean __class__.__name__ or __class__.__qualname__ (in this simple case they're identical) and print that.
* In fact, this was one of the arguments against it: that the only plausible way to do this without changing the language syntax was to add a new closure cell to every function, or to require some horrible frame hacks which may not even be doable in other implementations of Python. You can't just use compiler magic, because there's no way the compiler can tell that some arbitrary expression will evaluate to the super function at runtime…

If you can use #abarnert's method, do it.
Otherwise, you can use some hardcore introspection (for python2.7):
import inspect
from http://stackoverflow.com/a/22898743/2096752 import getMethodClass
def enclosing_class():
frame = inspect.currentframe().f_back
caller_self = frame.f_locals['self']
caller_method_name = frame.f_code.co_name
return getMethodClass(caller_self.__class__, caller_method_name)
class SomeClass:
def do_it(self):
print(enclosing_class())
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
DerivedClass().do_it() # prints 'SomeClass'
Obviously, this is likely to raise an error if:
called from a regular function / staticmethod / classmethod
the calling function has a different name for self (as aptly pointed out by #abarnert, this can be solved by using frame.f_code.co_varnames[0])

Sorry for writing yet another answer, but here's how to do what you actually want to do, rather than what you asked for:
this is about adding instrumentation to a code base to be able to generate reports of method invocation counts, for the purpose of checking certain approximate runtime invariants (e.g. "the number of times that method ClassA.x() is executed is approximately equal to the number of times that method ClassB.y() is executed in the course of a run of a complicated program).
The way to do that is to make your instrumentation function inject the information statically. After all, it has to know the class and method it's injecting code into.
I will have to instrument many classes by hand, and to prevent mistakes I want to avoid typing the class names everywhere. In essence, it's the same reason why typing super() is preferable to typing super(ClassX, self).
If your instrumentation function is "do it manually", the very first thing you want to turn it into an actual function instead of doing it manually. Since you obviously only need static injection, using a decorator, either on the class (if you want to instrument every method) or on each method (if you don't) would make this nice and readable. (Or, if you want to instrument every method of every class, you might want to define a metaclass and have your root classes use it, instead of decorating every class.)
For example, here's an easy way to instrument every method of a class:
import collections
import functools
import inspect
_calls = {}
def inject(cls):
cls._calls = collections.Counter()
_calls[cls.__name__] = cls._calls
for name, method in cls.__dict__.items():
if inspect.isfunction(method):
#functools.wraps(method)
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
cls._calls[name] += 1
return method(*args, **kwargs)
setattr(cls, name, wrapper)
return cls
#inject
class A(object):
def f(self):
print('A.f here')
#inject
class B(A):
def f(self):
print('B.f here')
#inject
class C(B):
pass
#inject
class D(C):
def f(self):
print('D.f here')
d = D()
d.f()
B.f(d)
print(_calls)
The output:
{'A': Counter(),
'C': Counter(),
'B': Counter({'f': 1}),
'D': Counter({'f': 1})}
Exactly what you wanted, right?

You can either do what #mgilson suggested or take another approach.
class SomeClass:
pass
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
This makes SomeClass the base class for DerivedClass.
When you normally try to get the __class__.name__ then it will refer to derived class rather than the parent.
When you call do_it(), it's really passing DerivedClass as self, which is why you are most likely getting DerivedClass being printed.
Instead, try this:
class SomeClass:
pass
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
def do_it(self):
for base in self.__class__.__bases__:
print base.__name__
obj = DerivedClass()
obj.do_it() # Prints SomeClass
Edit:
After reading your question a few more times I think I understand what you want.
class SomeClass:
def do_it(self):
cls = self.__class__.__bases__[0].__name__
print cls
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
obj = DerivedClass()
obj.do_it() # prints SomeClass

[Edited]
A somewhat more generic solution:
import inspect
class Foo:
pass
class SomeClass(Foo):
def do_it(self):
mro = inspect.getmro(self.__class__)
method_name = inspect.currentframe().f_code.co_name
for base in reversed(mro):
if hasattr(base, method_name):
print(base.__name__)
break
class DerivedClass(SomeClass):
pass
class DerivedClass2(DerivedClass):
pass
DerivedClass().do_it()
>> 'SomeClass'
DerivedClass2().do_it()
>> 'SomeClass'
SomeClass().do_it()
>> 'SomeClass'
This fails when some other class in the stack has attribute "do_it", since this is the signal name for stop walking the mro.

Is there a way to implement methods like __len__ or __eq__ as classmethods?

It is pretty easy to implement __len__(self) method in Python so that it handles len(inst) calls like this one:
class A(object):
def __len__(self):
return 7
a = A()
len(a) # gives us 7
And there are plenty of alike methods you can define (__eq__, __str__, __repr__ etc.).
I know that Python classes are objects as well.
My question: can I somehow define, for example, __len__ so that the following works:
len(A) # makes sense and gives some predictable result

What you're looking for is called a "metaclass"... just like a is an instance of class A, A is an instance of class as well, referred to as a metaclass. By default, Python classes are instances of the type class (the only exception is under Python 2, which has some legacy "old style" classes, which are those which don't inherit from object). You can check this by doing type(A)... it should return type itself (yes, that object has been overloaded a little bit).
Metaclasses are powerful and brain-twisting enough to deserve more than the quick explanation I was about to write... a good starting point would be this stackoverflow question: What is a Metaclass.
For your particular question, for Python 3, the following creates a metaclass which aliases len(A) to invoke a class method on A:
class LengthMetaclass(type):
def __len__(self):
return self.clslength()
class A(object, metaclass=LengthMetaclass):
#classmethod
def clslength(cls):
return 7
print(len(A))
(Note: Example above is for Python 3. The syntax is slightly different for Python 2: you would use class A(object):\n __metaclass__=LengthMetaclass instead of passing it as a parameter.)
The reason LengthMetaclass.__len__ doesn't affect instances of A is that attribute resolution in Python first checks the instance dict, then walks the class hierarchy [A, object], but it never consults the metaclasses. Whereas accessing A.__len__ first consults the instance A, then walks it's class hierarchy, which consists of [LengthMetaclass, type].

Since a class is an instance of a metaclass, one way is to use a custom metaclass:
>>> Meta = type('Meta', (type,), {'__repr__': lambda cls: 'class A'})
>>> A = Meta('A', (object,), {'__repr__': lambda self: 'instance of class A'})
>>> A
class A
>>> A()
instance of class A

I fail to see how the Syntax specifically is important, but if you really want a simple way to implement it, just is the normal len(self) that returns len(inst) but in your implementation make it return a class variable that all instances share:
class A:
my_length = 5
def __len__(self):
return self.my_length
and you can later call it like that:
len(A()) #returns 5
obviously this creates a temporary instance of your class, but length only makes sense for an instance of a class and not really for the concept of a class (a Type object).
Editing the metaclass sounds like a very bad idea and unless you are doing something for school or to just mess around I really suggest you rethink this idea..

try this:
class Lengthy:
x = 5
#classmethod
def __len__(cls):
return cls.x
The #classmethod allows you to call it directly on the class, but your len implementation won't be able to depend on any instance variables:
a = Lengthy()
len(a)

Python: using Self and adding methods to an object on the fly

Here's my idea: Start with a simple object:
class dynamicObject(object):
pass
And to be able to add pre written methods to it on the fly:
def someMethod(self):
pass
So that I can do this:
someObject = dyncamicObject()
someObject._someMethod = someMethod
someObject._someMethod()
Problem is, it wants me to specify the self part of _someMethod() so that it looks like this:
someObject._someMethod(someObject)
This seems kind of odd since isn't self implied when a method is "attached" to an object?
I'm new to the Python way of thinking and am trying to get away from the same thought process for languages like C# so the idea here it to be able to create an object for validation by picking and choosing what validation methods I want to add to it rather than making some kind of object hierarchy. I figured that Python's "self" idea would work in my favor as I thought the object would implicitly know to send itself into the method attached to it.
One thing to note, the method is NOT attached to the object in any way (Completely different files) so maybe that is the issue? Maybe by defining the method on it's own, self is actually the method in question and therefore can't be implied as the object?

Although below I've tried to answer the literal question, I think
Muhammad Alkarouri's answer better addresses how the problem should actually be solved.
Add the method to the class, dynamicObject, rather than the object, someObject:
class dynamicObject(object):
pass
def someMethod(self):
print('Hi there!')
someObject=dynamicObject()
dynamicObject.someMethod=someMethod
someObject.someMethod()
# Hi there!
When you say someObject.someMethod=someMethod, then someObject.__dict__ gets the key-value pair ('someMethod',someMethod).
When you say dynamicObject.someMethod=someMethod, then someMethod is added to dynamicObject's __dict__. You need someMethod defined in the class for
someObject.someMethod to act like a method call. For more information about this, see Raymond Hettinger's essay on descriptors -- after all, a method is nothing more than a descriptor! -- and Shalabh Chaturvedi's essay on attribute lookup.
There is an alternative way:
import types
someObject.someMethod=types.MethodType(someMethod,someObject,type(someObject))
but this is really an abomination since you are defining 'someMethod' as a key in someObject.__dict__, which is not the right place for methods. In fact, you do not get a class method at all, just a curried function. This is more than a mere technicality. Subclasses of dynamicObject would fail to inherit the someMethod function.

To achieve what you want (create an object for validation by picking and choosing what validation methods I want to add to it), a better way is:
class DynamicObject(object):
def __init__(self, verify_method = None):
self.verifier = verify_method
def verify(self):
self.verifier(self)
def verify1(self):
print "verify1"
def verify2(self):
print "verify2"
obj1 = DynamicObject()
obj1.verifier = verify1
obj2 = DynamicObject(verify2)
#equivalent to
#obj2 = DynamicObject()
#obj2.verify = verify2
obj1.verify()
obj2.verify()

Why don't you use setattr? I found this way much more explicit.
class dynamicObject(object):
pass
def method():
print "Hi"
someObject = dynamicObject()
setattr(someObject,"method", method)
someObject.method()

Sometimes it is annoying to need to write a regular function and add it afterwards when the method is very simple. In that case, lambdas can come to the rescue:
class Square:
pass
Square.getX = lambda self: self.x
Square.getY = lambda self: self.y
Square.calculateArea = lambda self: self.getX() * self.getY()
Hope this helps.

If you just want to wrap another class, and not have to deal with assigning a new method to any instance, you can just make the method in question a staticmethod of the class:
class wrapperClass(object):
#staticmethod
def foo():
print("yay!")
obj = wrapperClass()
obj.foo() // Yay!
And you can then give any other class the .foo method with multiple inheritance.
class fooDict(dict, wrapperClass):
"""Normal dict with foo method"""
foo_dict = fooDict()
foo_dict.setdefault('A', 10)
print(foo_dict) // {'A': 10}
foo_dict.foo() // Yay!