class Parent():
def __init__(self):
self.child = Child()
class Child():
def __init__(self):
# get Parent instance
self.parent = self.Instantiator()
I know this isn't proper encapsulation but for interest's sake...
Given a "Parent" class that instantiates a "Child" object, is it possible from within Child to return the Parent object that instantiated it? And if no, I'm curious, do any languages support this?
To answer the question, no, there's no way1 the child instance knows about any classes which contain references to it. The common2 way to handle this is:
class Parent(object):
def __init__(self):
self.child = Child()
self.child._parent = self
1 Of course, this isn't strictly true. As another commentor noted, you can extract the stack frame from the executing code within the __init__ method, and examine the f_locals dictionary for the self variable for the frame before the currently executing one. But this is complicated, and prone to error. Highly unrecommended.
2 A slightly better way to handle this (depending on the specific needs of the program) might be to require the parent to pass itself to the child, like so:
class Parent(object):
def __init__(self):
self.child = Child(self)
class Child(object):
def __init__(self, parent):
self._parent = parent
Here's a reasonably-simple metaclass solution to the problem:
import functools
class MetaTrackinits(type):
being_inited = []
def __new__(cls, n, b, d):
clob = type.__new__(cls, n, b, d)
theinit = getattr(clob, '__init__')
#functools.wraps(theinit)
def __init__(self, *a, **k):
MetaTrackinits.being_inited.append(self)
try: theinit(self, *a, **k)
finally: MetaTrackinits.being_inited.pop()
setattr(clob, '__init__', __init__)
def Instantiator(self, where=-2):
return MetaTrackinits.being_inited[where]
setattr(clob, 'Instantiator', Instantiator)
return clob
__metaclass__ = MetaTrackinits
class Parent():
def __init__(self):
self.child = Child()
class Child():
def __init__(self):
self.parent = self.Instantiator()
p = Parent()
print p
print p.child.parent
a typical output, depending on the platform, will be something like
<__main__.Parent object at 0xd0750>
<__main__.Parent object at 0xd0750>
You could obtain a similar effect (in 2.6 and later) with a class decorator, but then all classes needing the functionality (both parent and children ones) would have to be explicitly decorated -- here, they just need to have the same metaclass, which may be less intrusive thanks to the "module-global __metaclass__ setting" idiom (and the fact that metaclasses, differently from class-decorations, also get inherited).
In fact, this is simple enough that I would consider allowing it in production code, if the need for that magical "instantiator" method had a proven business basis (I would never allow, in production code, a hack based on walking the stack frames!-). (BTW, the "allowing" part comes from the best-practice of mandatory code reviews: code changes don't get into the trunk of the codebase without consensus from reviewers -- this how typical open source projects work, and also how we always operate at my employer).
Here's an example based off of some of Chris B.'s suggestions to show how absolutely terrible it would be to inspect the stack:
import sys
class Child(object):
def __init__(self):
# To get the parent:
# 1. Get our current stack frame
# 2. Go back one level to our caller (the Parent() constructor).
# 3. Grab it's locals dictionary
# 4. Fetch the self instance.
# 5. Assign it to our parent property.
self.parent = sys._getframe().f_back.f_locals['self']
class Parent(object):
def __init__(self):
self.child = Child()
if __name__ == '__main__':
p = Parent()
assert(id(p) == id(p.child.parent))
Sure that'll work, but just never try to refactor it into a seperate method, or create a base class from it.
you could* try to use the traceback module, just to prove a point.
**Don't try this at home, kids*
This can be done in python with metaclasses.
Related
I looked at answers https://stackoverflow.com/a/33469090/11638153 and https://stackoverflow.com/a/27134600 but did not understand what is "indirection." To be specific, if I have classes like below, are there any drawbacks or advantages in hardcoding the parent class __init__(), as done in class Child1 (why do we need super() when one can explicitly write __init__() methods to invoke)?
class Base1:
def __init__(self):
print("Class Base1 init()")
class Base2:
def __init__(self):
print("Class Base2 init()")
class Child1(Base1, Base2):
def __init__(self):
print("Class Child1 init()")
Base1.__init__(self)
Base2.__init__(self)
class Child2(Base1, Base2):
def __init__(self):
print("Class Child2 init()")
super().__init__()
if __name__ == "__main__":
obj1 = Child1()
print("---")
obj2 = Child2()
Roughly, the difference is that ParentClass.__init__(self) always calls the specifically named class while super().__init__() makes a runtime computation to determine which class to call.
In many situations, the two ways give the same results. However, super() is much more powerful. It a multiple inheritance scenario, it can potentially call some class other than the parent of the current class. This article covers the latter scenario is detail.
For single inheritance, the reason to prefer super() is that that it read nicely and that it makes maintenance easier by computing the parent class.
For multiple inheritance, super() is the only straightforward way to access parent classes in the order of the MRO for the class of the calling instance. If those words don't mean anything to you, please look at the referenced article.
In your example code, Child1's design is very fragile. If its two base classes share some common base (and call their own parents' __init__ method inside of their own turn), that grandparent class might get initialized more than once, which would be bad if it's computationally costly, or has side effects. This is the "diamond pattern" of inheritance hierarchy that can be troublesome in many languages (like C++) that allow multiple inheritance.
Here's an example of the bad problem that can come up with explicit parent calls, and which super() is designed to fix:
class Grandparent:
def __init__(self):
print("Grandparent")
class Parent1(Grandparent):
def __init__(self):
print("Parent1")
Grandparent.__init__(self)
class Parent2(Grandparent):
def __init__(self):
print("Parent2")
Grandparent.__init__(self)
class Child(Parent1, Parent2):
def __init__(self):
print("Child")
Parent1.__init__(self)
Parent2.__init__(self)
c = Child() # this causes "Grandparent" to be printed twice!
Python's solution is to use super() which allows collaborative multiple inheritance. Each class must be set up to use it, including the intermediate base classes! Once you set everything up to use super, they'll call each other as necessary, and nothing will ever get called more than once.
class Grandparent:
def __init__(self):
print("Grandparent")
class Parent1(Grandparent):
def __init__(self):
print("Parent1")
super().__init__()
class Parent2(Grandparent):
def __init__(self):
print("Parent2")
super().__init__()
class Child(Parent1, Parent2):
def __init__(self):
print("Child")
super().__init__()
c = Child() # no extra "Grandparent" printout this time
In fact, every instance of multiple-inheritance in Python is a diamond shape, with the Grandparent class of object (if not something else). The object class has an __init__ method that takes no arguments (other than self) and does nothing.
It's important to note that the super().__init__ calls from the ParentX classes don't always go directly to Grandparent. When initializing an instance of Parent1 or Parent2, they will, but when instantiating an instance of Child, then Parent1.__init__'s call will go to Parent2.__init__, and only from there will Parent2's super call go to Grandparent.__init__.
Where a super call resolves to depends on the MRO (Method Resolution Order) of the instance the methods are being called on. A super call generally means "find this method in the next class in the MRO" relative to where it's called from. You can see the MRO of a class by calling SomeClass.mro(). For Child in my examples, it's: [Child, Parent1, Parent2, Grandparent, object]
I have a pretty big class that i want to break down in smaller classes that each handle a single part of the whole. So each child takes care of only one aspect of the whole.
Each of these child classes still need to communicate with one another.
For example Data Access creates a dictionary that Plotting Controller needs to have access to.
And then plotting Controller needs to update stuff on Main GUI Controller. But these children have various more inter-communication functions.
How do I achieve this?
I've read Metaclasses, Cooperative Multiple Inheritence and Wonders of Cooperative Multiple Inheritence, but i cannot figure out how to do this.
The closest I've come is the following code:
class A:
def __init__(self):
self.myself = 'ClassA'
def method_ONE_from_class_A(self, caller):
print(f"I am method ONE from {self.myself} called by {caller}")
self.method_ONE_from_class_B(self.myself)
def method_TWO_from_class_A(self, caller):
print(f"I am method TWO from {self.myself} called by {caller}")
self.method_TWO_from_class_B(self.myself)
class B:
def __init__(self):
self.me = 'ClassB'
def method_ONE_from_class_B(self, caller):
print(f"I am method ONE from {self.me} called by {caller}")
self.method_TWO_from_class_A(self.me)
def method_TWO_from_class_B(self, caller):
print(f"I am method TWO from {self.me} called by {caller}")
class C(A, B):
def __init__(self):
A.__init__(self)
B.__init__(self)
def children_start_talking(self):
self.method_ONE_from_class_A('Big Poppa')
poppa = C()
poppa.children_start_talking()
which results correctly in:
I am method ONE from ClassA called by Big Poppa
I am method ONE from ClassB called by ClassA
I am method TWO from ClassA called by ClassB
I am method TWO from ClassB called by ClassA
But... even though Class B and Class A correctly call the other children's functions, they don't actually find their declaration. Nor do i "see" them when i'm typing the code, which is both frustrating and worrisome that i might be doing something wrong.
Is there a good way to achieve this? Or is it an actually bad idea?
EDIT: Python 3.7 if it makes any difference.
Inheritance
When breaking a class hierarchy like this, the individual "partial" classes, we call "mixins", will "see" only what is declared directly on them, and on their base-classes. In your example, when writing class A, it does not know anything about class B - you as the author, can know that methods from class B will be present, because methods from class A will only be called from class C, that inherits both.
Your programming tools, the IDE including, can't know that. (That you should know better than your programming aid, is a side track). It would work, if run, but this is a poor design.
If all methods are to be present directly on a single instance of your final class, all of them have to be "present" in a super-class for them all - you can even write independent subclasses in different files, and then a single subclass that will inherit all of them:
from abc import abstractmethod, ABC
class Base(ABC):
#abstractmethod
def method_A_1(self):
pass
#abstractmethod
def method_A_2(self):
pass
#abstractmethod
def method_B_1(self):
pass
class A(Base):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
# pop consumed named parameters from "kwargs"
...
super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
# This call ensures all __init__ in bases are called
# because Python linearize the base classes on multiple inheritance
def method_A_1(self):
...
def method_A_2(self):
...
class B(Base):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
# pop consumed named parameters from "kwargs"
...
super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
# This call ensures all __init__ in bases are called
# because Python linearize the base classes on multiple inheritance
def method_B_1(self):
...
...
class C(A, B):
pass
(The "ABC" and "abstractmethod" are a bit of sugar - they will work, but this design would work without any of that - thought their presence help whoever is looking at your code to figure out what is going on, and will raise an earlier runtime error if you per mistake create an instance of one of the incomplete base classes)
Composite
This works, but if your methods are actually for wildly different domains, instead
of multiple inheritance, you should try using the "composite design pattern".
No need for multiple inheritance if it does not arise naturally.
In this case, you instantiate objects of the classes that drive the different domains on the __init__ of the shell class, and pass its own instance to those child, which will keep a reference to it (in a self.parent attribute, for example). Chances are your IDE still won't know what you are talking about, but you will have a saner design.
class Parent:
def __init__(self):
self.a_domain = A(self)
self.b_domain = B(self)
class A:
def __init__(self, parent):
self.parent = parent
# no need to call any "super...init", this is called
# as part of the initialization of the parent class
def method_A_1(self):
...
def method_A_2(self):
...
class B:
def __init__(self, parent):
self.parent = parent
def method_B_1(self):
# need result from 'A' domain:
a_value = self.parent.a_domain.method_A_1()
...
This example uses the basic of the language features, but if you decide
to go for it in a complex application, you can sophisticate it - there are
interface patterns, that could allow you to swap the classes used
for different domains, in specialized subclasses, and so on. But typically
the pattern above is what you would need.
I am trying to create a set of classes as containers of modular blocks of logic. The idea is to be able to mix and match the classes through inheritance (possibly multiple inheritance) to execute any combination of those pieces of modular logic. Here is the structure I currently have:
class Base:
methods = {}
def __init__(self):
"""
This will create an instance attribute copy of the combined dict
of all the methods in every parent class.
"""
self.methods = {}
for cls in self.__class__.__mro__:
# object is the only class that won't have a methods attribute
if not cls == object:
self.methods.update(cls.methods)
def call(self):
"""
This will execute all the methods in every parent
"""
for k,v in self.methods.items():
v(self)
class ParentA(Base):
def method1(self):
print("Parent A called")
methods = {"method":method1}
class ParentB(Base):
def method2(self):
print("Parent B called")
methods = {"method2" : method2}
class Child(ParentA, ParentB):
def method3(self):
print("Child called")
methods = {"method3" : method3}
This seems to work as expected but I was wondering if there is anything I might be missing design wise or if there is something I am trying to do that I should not be doing. Any considerations or feedback on the structure is very welcome. As well as tips on how I could make this more pythonic. Thank you all in advance.
I have a function which return instances of the class Parent:
def generateParent():
do_stuff
return Parent(some_parameters)
Now I want to init a subclass of Parent with the results of a call to generateParent():
class Child(Parent):
def __new__():
return generateParent(some_other_parameters)
The problem is, when I override some methods from Parent in Child and then call them in instances of Child in my program, the original Parent method gets called instead of the new one from Child. Am I doing something wrong here? Am I using the correct design here for my task?
EDIT: I don't have access neither to Parent nor generateParent()
Solution(thanks to #Paul McGuire's answer):
class Child(object):
def __init__(self):
self.obj = generateParent()
def __getattr__(self, attr):
return getattr(self.obj, attr)
Since generateParent is not your code, then instead of inheritance, you might want to use containment and delegation. That is, instead of defining a subclass, define a wrapper class that contains the generated object, forwards method calls to it when needed, but can add new behavior or modified behavior in the wrapper.
In this question, the OP had a similar situation, having a class generated in a libary, but wanting to extend the class and/or modify some behavior of the class. Look at how I added a wrapper class in that question, and you might consider doing something similar here.
Here's one way to do it:
def generateChild(params):
p = generateParent(params)
p.__class__ = Child
return p
class Child(Parent):
# put method overrides etc here
childinstance = generateChild(some_params)
Perhaps you want generateParent to be able to make instances of other classes:
def generateParent(cls=Parent):
do_stuff
return cls(some_parameters)
Now this will make a Child object:
child = generateParent(Child)
Or perhaps you want Parent and all of its derived classes to use common initialization code?
class Parent(object):
def __init__(self):
do_stuff
# init from some_parameters
class Child(Parent):
# blah..
Make your Child object able to copy information from a created Parent object:
class Child(Parent):
def __init__(self):
model_parent = generateParent()
self.a = model_parent.a
self.b = model_parent.b
# etc.
Is there no magic python way of accessing the instance of the class that has a reference to the current self inside it?
ie:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.B = B()
def say_hi(self):
print "Hi"
class B(object)
def __init__(self):
__get_owner_ref__.say_hi()
A()
get_owner_ref being the magic bullet that does not exist.
Is there a feature in python for this behaviour?
Yes I know I could pass a reference in to the constructor, but I'm looking for a more elegant solution.
No, You'd have to do something like this
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.B = B(parent=self)
def say_hi(self):
print "Hi"
class B(object)
def __init__(self, parent):
self.parent = parent # you don't need to do this, but it might be a good idea
parent.say_hi()
A()
On the second thought, what you're looking for pretty closely resembles descriptors. Consider:
class Agent(object):
def __get__(self, obj, objtype):
print 'Agent %s called from %s ' % (id(self), obj.name)
class X(object):
agent = Agent()
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
a = X('Foo')
a.agent
b = X('Bar')
b.agent
Here the agent is attached to two different instances and "knows" each time which instance wants to talk to him.
No, there is no nice way of doing this. Pass a reference in to the initializer.
To preclude questions, it's probably possible in most cases to find the owner heuristically by inspecting the stack, something like in this question. But it will be fragile, buggy and difficult to understand. And it goes against the "explicit > implicit" philosophy.
As far as I know such a feature does not exist. Also, passing it in as reference to the constructor and calling self.parent.say_hi() is much more explicit and (indeed) elegant. And explicit is better than implicit or using magic language features.
Technically, you can use sys._getframe:
class B(object):
def __init__(self):
import sys
a = sys._getframe(1).f_locals['self']
a.say_hi()
But you should not do that. It's bound to lead to confusion, will break on new Python implementations, will complicate debugging, and is prone to break.There's a reason why sys._getframe is listed in 5 Years of Bad Ideas.
Instead, pass a reference, either to the parent object, or to the say_hi method.