class ILinkedListElem:
#property
def value(self):
raise NotImplementedError
#property
def next(self):
raise NotImplementedError
class ListElem(ILinkedListElem):
def __init__(self, value, next_node=None):
self.value = value
self.next = next_node
I wanna something like this. This abstract variables definition works for class vars, but not for instance
I want to all instances of ILinkedListElem subclass must has "value" and "next" attributes
If you want to force/require all instances of any subclass of ILinkedListElem to have the attributes "value" and "nxt", the following standard implementation with abstractmethod seems to do what you're after:
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
class ILinkedListElem (ABC):
#property
#abstractmethod
def value(self):
raise NotImplementedError
#property
#abstractmethod
def nxt(self):
raise NotImplementedError
This is the abstract class, from which we create a compliant subclass:
class ListElem_good (ILinkedListElem):
def __init__(self, value, next_node=None):
self._value = value
self._nxt = next_node
#property
def value(self):
return self._value
#property
def nxt(self):
return self._nxt
We create an instance of this compliant subclass and test it:
x = ListElem_good('foo', 'bar')
print (x.value)
print (x.nxt)
#result:
# foo
# bar
If we create a non-compliant subclass that omits an implementation of nxt, like so:
class ListElem_bad (ILinkedListElem):
def __init__(self, value):
self._value = value
#property
def value(self):
return self._value
when we try to create an instance of this non-compliant subclass:
y = ListElem_bad('foo')
print (y.value)
it fails:
y = ListElem_bad('foo')
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class ListElem_bad with abstract methods nxt
This relies on essentially the same solution offered here, which you suggested in a comment-exchange does not meet your requirements. But when applied to your specific use-case above, it appears to precisely address the issue you've raised - or have I misunderstood?
Related
I have a class and I want to reassign a certain method to an hidden one of the same class.
In my case I have a generic filter that I want to assign to a specific implementation.
I'd like to have the func_map as a class attribute instead of an instance attribute because it seems more logic. How should I do that?
class MyClass:
func_map = {"eq" : __eq_filter}
def set_filter(self, func):
self.filter = MyClass.func_map[func]
def filter(self, value):
raise NotImplementedError
def __eq_filter(self, value):
return self.attribute == value
Maybe use the built-in #staticmethod decorator, which, according to the docs, allows to bound a method to the class instead of to the instance (Transform a method into a static method):
class MyClass:
func_map = {"eq" : __eq_filter}
def set_filter(self, func):
self.filter = func_map[func]
def filter(self, value):
raise NotImplementedError
#staticmethod
def __eq_filter(self, value):
return self.attribute == value
Check the docs for more info: https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#staticmethod
I'm trying to implement an abstract class with attributes and I can't get how to define it simply.
I just want to define the attribute name to constrain child classes to have it but I don't want to copy/paste getters & setters in every classes that inherit my abstract class.
Here are solutions I found but not very elegant in my opinion:
Maybe the most efficient and robust way, but quite ugly and redundant. We have to put 'def a(): pass', in each child class
class AbstractC(ABC):
#property
#abstractmethod
def a(self):
pass
class ConcreteC1(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name):
self.a = name
def a(self):
pass
class ConcreteC2(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name):
self.a = name
class ConcreteC3(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name):
self.poney = name
ConcreteC1('foobar') # ok
ConcreteC2('foobar') # error !
ConcreteC3('foobar') # error !
Quite the same, but uglier imo
class AbstractC(ABC):
#property
#abstractmethod
def a(self):
pass
class ConcreteC1(AbstractC):
a = None
def __init__(self, name):
self.a = name
class ConcreteC2(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name):
self.a = name
class ConcreteC3(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name):
self.poney = name
ConcreteC1('foobar') # ok
ConcreteC2('foobar') # error !
ConcreteC3('foobar') # error !
Most compact way, but not robust. No error if 'a' is missing
class AbstractC(ABC):
#abstractmethod
def __init__(self, val):
self.a = val
class ConcreteC1(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name):
self.a = name
class ConcreteC2(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name):
self.poney = name
ConcreteC1('foobar') # ok
ConcreteC2('foobar') # no error !
So is there a way to get an elegant, robust and compact abstract class with abstract attribute ? Or am I trying to get something impossible ? I was thinking about something close to that :
class AbstractC(ABC):
#property
#abstractmethod
def a(self):
pass
class ConcreteC(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name):
self.a = name
If there is no such solution, what is the best one ?
You could misuse namedtuples for fancy inheritance
from collections import namedtuple
BaseAttributes = namedtuple('base', ['attr1', 'attr2'])
print(BaseAttributes('one', 2))
class SomethingElse(BaseAttributes):
def method(self):
return 3
blubb = SomethingElse('A', 5)
blubb.method()
but imho your last proposal(s) makes sense if you raise NotImplementedError, e.g.:
class AbstractC(ABC):
def a(self):
raise NotImplementedError('Implement _a_ method')
class ConcreteC(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, name, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.a = name
Maybe this will help. I made a class which inherits from ABC. It defines the method __init_subclass__ that is invoked after a new subclass is created. It does the next: For each abstract property declared, search the same method in the subclass. If it exists (its a function object) convert it to a property and replace it in the subclass dictionary.
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
class Foo(ABC):
def __init_subclass__(cls):
super().__init_subclass__()
###### This is the new part. I explain it at the end of the answer
for name, value in attrs.items():
if name not in cls.__dict__:
setattr(cls, name, property(lambda *args, **kwargs: value))
######
# Iterate throught all abstract methods on the class
for name in Foo.__abstractmethods__:
absmethod = Foo.__dict__[name]
# Check if the abstract method is a property
if not isinstance(absmethod, property):
continue
# Check if there is a method defined in the subclass with the same name
if name not in cls.__dict__ or not callable(cls.__dict__[name]):
continue
method = cls.__dict__[name]
# If the method is not already a property, we decorate it automatically...
if not isinstance(method, property):
setattr(cls, name, property(method))
#property
#abstractmethod
def a(self):
return 1
Now define a subclass and test it:
class Bar(Foo):
def __init__(self):
pass
def a(self):
return 2
#property
def b(self):
return 3
obj = Bar()
print(obj.a)
print(obj.b)
Output will be:
2
3
The next code will raise an error, because not all abstract methods are implemented:
class Qux(Foo):
pass
EDIT:
Now you can also do:
class Bar(Foo, a=1):
pass
print(Bar().a) # 1
There's still a problem. If i choose the implementation that raise an error, i have to add #property to the method or i can call ConcreteC().a even if a is not set and it will not raise the error:
class AbstractC(ABC):
def a(self):
raise NotImplementedError('Implement _a_ method')
class ConcreteC(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, val):
super().__init__()
self.poney = val
In [3]: ConcreteC('foobar').a
Out[3]: <bound method AbstractC.a of <__main__.ConcreteC object at 0x7f2e1c6b0518>>
But if i add #property i get an error :
class AbstractC(ABC):
#property
def a(self):
raise NotImplementedError('Implement _a_ method')
class ConcreteC(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, val):
super().__init__()
self.a = val
In [4]: ConcreteC('foobar')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-55-587237cb76e5> in <module>
----> 1 ConcreteC('foobar')
~/workspace/draft.py in __init__(self, val)
151 def __init__(self, val):
152 super().__init__()
--> 153 self.a = val
154
155
AttributeError: can't set attribute
EDIT:
Here the solution I chose:
class AbstractC(ABC):
#property
def a(self):
try:
return self._a
except AttributeError:
raise NotImplementedError('Implement _a_ method')
#a.setter
def a(self, val):
self._a = val
class ConcreteC(AbstractC):
def __init__(self, val):
self.a = val
This way I can edit 'a' very simply and if it's not definied, an exception is raised on get. I didn't know that to make a setter work, it must has the same name as the property.
In the end, what I wanted isn't an abstract attribute, but a concrete one in an abstract class.
In [1]: c = ConcreteC('foobar')
In [2]: c.a
Out[2]: 'foobar'
In [3]: c.a = 'poney'
In [4]: c.a
Out[4]: 'poney'
I want to write abstract class that will force inheriting classes to implement all methods AND properties in my abstract class.
Additionally I want to use of setters and getters for my abstract property to make my code uncluttered and looking nicely
However, current implementation:
import abc
class Component(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
#property
#abc.abstractmethod
def status(self):
pass
#property
#status.setter
#abc.abstractmethod
def status(self, value):
pass
does enforce inheriting class to implement getter for my abstract property getter, but does not enforce creating a property setter (what is exactly what I want)
How can I achieve this behavior without loosing all benefits from application of further mentioned method (aka writing new methods and executing them in my abstract class setter) ?
from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod
class Base(object):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
def __init__(self, val):
self._foo = val
#abstractmethod
def _doStuff(self, signals):
print ('Base does stuff')
#abstractmethod
def _get_foo(self):
return self._foo
#abstractmethod
def _set_foo(self, val):
self._foo = val + 'r'
foo = property(_get_foo, _set_foo)
class floor_1(Base):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
def __init__(self, val):
self._foo = val
super(floor_1, self).__init__(val)
def _doStuff(self, signals):
print ('floor_1 does stuff')
def _get_foo(self):
return self._foo
def _set_foo(self, val):
#self._foo = val + 'r'
super()._set_foo(val + 'r')
foo = property(_get_foo, _set_foo)
class floor_2(floor_1):
#property
def foo(self):
return self._foo
#foo.setter
def foo(self, val):
self._foo = val + 'r'
#super()._set_foo(val + 'r')
b1 = floor_1('bar')
# b1 = floor_2('bar')
print(b1.foo)
b1.foo = 'bar'
print(b1.foo)
The problem is that neither the getter nor the setter is a method of your abstract class; they are attributes of the property, which is a (non-callable) class attribute. Consider this equivalent definition:
def status_getter(self):
pass
def status_setter(self, value):
pass
class Component(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
# status = property(...)
# status.__isabstractmethod__ = True
status = abstractmethod(property(status_getter, status_setter))
Inheriting a property is quite different from inheriting a method. You are basically replacing the property, because your class itself does not have a reference to either the getter or the setter. Despite the name, abstractmethod does not actually make the property a method; it really does nothing more than add an attribute to whatever it is applied to and return the original value.
So, to ensure that a subclass provides a read/write property, what are you to do? Skip the decorator syntax, define the getter and setter as explicit abstract methods, then define the property explicitly in terms of those private methods.
class Component(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
#abstractmethod
def _get_status(self):
pass
#abstractmethod
def _set_status(self, v):
pass
status = property(lambda self: self._get_status(), lambda self, v: self._set_status(self, v))
Or, you can make use of __init_subclass__ (which postdates abc; its purpose is to allow class initialization that is otherwise only possible via a metaclass).
class Component:
def __init_subclass(cls, **kwargs):
super().__init_subclass__(**kwargs)
try:
p = cls.status
except AttributeError:
raise ValueError("Class does not define 'status' attribute")
if not isinstance(p, property):
raise ValueError("'status' is not a property")
if p.fget is None:
raise ValueError("'status' has no getter")
if p.fset is None:
raise ValueError("'status' has no setter")
This is actually an improvement over abc, in my opinion. If a subclass fails to define a read/write status property, an exception will be raised when the class is defined, not just when you attempt to instantiate the class.
I need the settings in the parent to contain the functions from the child. (Every child of this parent will use that settings, but the way the functions are defined will change)
Is this possible? Currently it appears to read in the undefined functions from the parent class (and thus breaks)
class Mine(object):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
#abstractmethod
def _get_stuff(self):
raise NotImplementedError()
#abstractmethod
def _set_stuff(self, value):
raise NotImplementedError()
settings = property(_get_stuff, _set_stuff)
def do_stuff_with_settings(self):
return settings
class Child(Mine):
def _get_stuff(self):
return {"a": 2}
def _set_stuff(self):
pass
def do_stuff(self):
self.a = do_stuff_with_settings.a
From the docs
a metaclass derived from ABCMeta cannot be instantiated unless all of
its abstract methods and properties are overridden.
I changed how you created the base class to class Mine(metaclass=ABCMeta):
and received the error
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "g.py", line 24, in <module>
Child().settings
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Child with abstract methods settings
So that makes the problem more explicit. To fix the problem, just have the child classes create their own settings property. Now they are bound to the concrete methods instead of the abstract methods.
from abc import ABCMeta,abstractmethod
class Mine(object):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
#abstractmethod
def _get_stuff(self):
raise NotImplementedError()
#abstractmethod
def _set_stuff(self, value):
raise NotImplementedError()
settings = property(_get_stuff, _set_stuff)
def do_stuff_with_settings(self):
return settings
class Child(Mine):
def _get_stuff(self):
return 1
def _set_stuff(self):
pass
settings = property(_get_stuff, _set_stuff)
Child().settings
UPDATE
This isn't just an ABC issue. You have this problem with any subclass that overrides a property method. Here, I try to override a getter but find that I still get the parent's view:
>>> class Foo:
... def __init__(self, val):
... self._val = val
... def _get_val(self):
... return self._val
... def _set_val(self, val):
... self._val = val
... val = property(_get_val, _set_val)
...
>>> class Bar(Foo):
... def _get_val(self):
... return self._val + 2
...
>>> print('want 3, got', Bar(1).val)
want 3, got 1
UPDATE 2
The problem is that property binds the class method when it is defined. If you don't mind implementing intermediate functions, then you can let them resolve the target method at runtime after the child has overriden them. Here, _get_stuff calls _get_stuff_impl at runtime and you get the child version.
from abc import ABCMeta,abstractmethod
class Mine(metaclass=ABCMeta):
def _get_stuff(self):
return self._get_stuff_impl()
#abstractmethod
def _get_stuff_impl(self):
raise NotImplementedError()
def _set_stuff(self, value):
return self._set_stuff_impl(value)
#abstractmethod
def _set_stuff_impl(self, value):
raise NotImplementedError()
settings = property(_get_stuff, _set_stuff)
def do_stuff_with_settings(self):
return settings
class Child(Mine):
def _get_stuff_impl(self):
return 1
def _set_stuff_impl(self):
pass
# settings = property(_get_stuff, _set_stuff)
Child().settings
I'm changing some classes of mine from an extensive use of getters and setters to a more pythonic use of properties.
But now I'm stuck because some of my previous getters or setters would call the corresponding method of the base class, and then perform something else. But how can this be accomplished with properties? How to call the property getter or setter in the parent class?
Of course just calling the attribute itself gives infinite recursion.
class Foo(object):
#property
def bar(self):
return 5
#bar.setter
def bar(self, a):
print a
class FooBar(Foo):
#property
def bar(self):
# return the same value
# as in the base class
return self.bar # --> recursion!
#bar.setter
def bar(self, c):
# perform the same action
# as in the base class
self.bar = c # --> recursion!
# then do something else
print 'something else'
fb = FooBar()
fb.bar = 7
You might think you could call the base class function which is called by property:
class FooBar(Foo):
#property
def bar(self):
# return the same value
# as in the base class
return Foo.bar(self)
Though this is the most obvious thing to try I think - it does not work because bar is a property, not a callable.
But a property is just an object, with a getter method to find the corresponding attribute:
class FooBar(Foo):
#property
def bar(self):
# return the same value
# as in the base class
return Foo.bar.fget(self)
super() should do the trick:
return super().bar
In Python 2.x you need to use the more verbose syntax:
return super(FooBar, self).bar
There is an alternative using super that does not require to explicitly reference the base class name.
Base class A:
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):
# we want to extend prop here
pass
In B, accessing the property getter of the parent class A:
As others have already answered, it's:
super(B, self).prop
Or in Python 3:
super().prop
This returns the value returned by the getter of the property, not the getter itself but it's sufficient to extend the getter.
In B, accessing the property setter of the parent class A:
The best recommendation I've seen so far is the following:
A.prop.fset(self, value)
I believe this one is better:
super(B, self.__class__).prop.fset(self, value)
In this example both options are equivalent but using super has the advantage of being independent from the base classes of B. If B were to inherit from a C class also extending the property, you would not have to update B's code.
Full code of B extending A's property:
class B(A):
#property
def prop(self):
value = super(B, self).prop
# do something with / modify value here
return value
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
# do something with / modify value here
super(B, self.__class__).prop.fset(self, value)
One caveat:
Unless your property doesn't have a setter, you have to define both the setter and the getter in B even if you only change the behaviour of one of them.
try
#property
def bar:
return super(FooBar, self).bar
Although I'm not sure if python supports calling the base class property. A property is actually a callable object which is set up with the function specified and then replaces that name in the class. This could easily mean that there is no super function available.
You could always switch your syntax to use the property() function though:
class Foo(object):
def _getbar(self):
return 5
def _setbar(self, a):
print a
bar = property(_getbar, _setbar)
class FooBar(Foo):
def _getbar(self):
# return the same value
# as in the base class
return super(FooBar, self)._getbar()
def bar(self, c):
super(FooBar, self)._setbar(c)
print "Something else"
bar = property(_getbar, _setbar)
fb = FooBar()
fb.bar = 7
Some small improvements to Maxime's answer:
Using __class__ to avoid writing B. Note that self.__class__ is the runtime type of self, but __class__ without self is the name of the enclosing class definition. super() is a shorthand for super(__class__, self).
Using __set__ instead of fset. The latter is specific to propertys, but the former applies to all property-like objects (descriptors).
class B(A):
#property
def prop(self):
value = super().prop
# do something with / modify value here
return value
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
# do something with / modify value here
super(__class__, self.__class__).prop.__set__(self, value)
You can use the following template:
class Parent():
def __init__(self, value):
self.__prop1 = value
#getter
#property
def prop1(self):
return self.__prop1
#setter
#prop1.setter
def prop1(self, value):
self.__prop1 = value
#deleter
#prop1.deleter
def prop1(self):
del self.__prop1
class Child(Parent):
#getter
#property
def prop1(self):
return super(Child, Child).prop1.__get__(self)
#setter
#prop1.setter
def prop1(self, value):
super(Child, Child).prop1.__set__(self, value)
#deleter
#prop1.deleter
def prop1(self):
super(Child, Child).prop1.__delete__(self)
Note! All of the property methods must be redefined together. If do not want to redefine all methods, use the following template instead:
class Parent():
def __init__(self, value):
self.__prop1 = value
#getter
#property
def prop1(self):
return self.__prop1
#setter
#prop1.setter
def prop1(self, value):
self.__prop1 = value
#deleter
#prop1.deleter
def prop1(self):
del self.__prop1
class Child(Parent):
#getter
#Parent.prop1.getter
def prop1(self):
return super(Child, Child).prop1.__get__(self)
#setter
#Parent.prop1.setter
def prop1(self, value):
super(Child, Child).prop1.__set__(self, value)
#deleter
#Parent.prop1.deleter
def prop1(self):
super(Child, Child).prop1.__delete__(self)
class Base(object):
def method(self):
print "Base method was called"
class Derived(Base):
def method(self):
super(Derived,self).method()
print "Derived method was called"
d = Derived()
d.method()
(that is unless I am missing something from your explanation)