I am trying to provide wrappers for short-cutting every-day commands. Python environments are very useful to do that.
Is it possible to provide all methods of an object to the local namespace within a new environment?
class my_object:
def method_a():
...
class my_environment:
...
def __enter__(self):
some_object = my_object()
# something like `from some_object import *` ??
return(some_object)
...
with my_environment() as some_object:
# standard syntax:
some_object.method_a()
# shortcut:
method_a() # how to make this possible?
It will be rather complex, and IMHO will not be worth it. The problem is that in Python, local variables are local to a function and not to a bloc. So what you are asking for would require that:
__enter__ declares nonlocal variables for all of the methods from some_object and saves their previous value if any
__exit__ restore the previous values if any of those variables, or deletes them if they did not previously existed
Possible but not really Pythonic IMHO (the reason why I have not proposed any code...). After all, inside a method Python requires the object to be explicitely passed, and requires it to be prepended to any internal method call or attribute access. So my advice is to stick to the standard syntax here...
What you are looking for is class hierarchy. On the way, please be careful with the conventions for class names.
class MyObject:
def method_a():
...
class MyEnvironment(MyObject):
...
def __enter__(self):
return self
...
with MyEnvironment() as some_object:
# standard syntax:
some_object.method_a()
The shortcut you are looking doesn't make much sense because the method_a() was defined as a method, therefore it should be called together with the instance.
Maybe #staticmethod can serve your case better.
class MyEnvironment:
#staticmethod
def method_a():
...
MyEnvironment.method_a()
Related
I've made a classproperty descriptor and whenever I use a function decorated with it, I get multiple pylint inspection errors.
Here is a sample class with a sample decorated function:
class Bar:
"""
Bar documentation.
"""
# pylint: disable=no-method-argument
#classproperty
def foo():
"""
Retrieve foo.
"""
return "foo"
Thanks to the descriptor, I can call Bar.foo and get the string foo returned.
Unfortunately, whenever I use functions like this with slightly more complex items (e.g. functions which return instances of objects), pylint starts complaining about things such as no-member or unexpected-keyword-arg, simply because it thinks Bar.foo is a method, rather than a wrapped classproperty object.
I would like to disable warnings for any code that uses my function - I definitely can't allow having to write # pylint: disable every single time I use the classproperty-wrapped methods. How can I do it with pylint? Or maybe I should switch to use a different linter instead?
Here is an example of a warning generated because of the reasons above:
class Bar:
"""
Bar documentation.
"""
# pylint: disable=no-method-argument
#classproperty
def foo():
"""
Retrieve an object.
"""
return NotImplementedError("Argument")
print(Bar.foo.args)
pylint complains that E1101: Method 'foo' has no 'args' member (no-member) (even though I know it definitely has), and I would like to completely disable some warnings for any module/class/function that uses Bar.foo.args or similar.
For anyone interested, here is a minimal implementation of a classproperty descriptor:
class classproperty:
"""
Minimal descriptor.
"""
# pylint: disable=invalid-name
def __init__(self, func):
self._func = func
def __get__(self, _obj, _type):
return self._func()
I have managed to create a dirty hack by type-hinting the items as None:
class Bar:
"""
Bar documentation.
"""
# pylint: disable=no-method-argument,function-redefined,too-few-public-methods
foo: None
#classproperty
def foo():
"""
Retrieve an object.
"""
return NotImplementedError("Argument")
I would rather avoid having code like this because I can't actually import the items which should be type-hinted due to the circular imports issue (hence None), but it tricks pylint well.
As far as I know, it's not possible.
I haven't found a way to solve this in pylint's configuration. The closest I could find is the property-classes option, but it only influences the invalid-name checker, so not what we are looking for here:
:property-classes:
List of decorators that produce properties, such as abc.abstractproperty. Add
to this list to register other decorators that produce valid properties.
These decorators are taken in consideration only for invalid-name.
Default: ``abc.abstractproperty``
Maybe it's a question that is worth asking pylint's developers directly.
Seems to me like it's something that could be solved with a transform plugin (Maybe this for inspiration?). Pylint handles #property decorators perfectly fine, so something like the #classproperty suggested here, should be feasible as well.
Aside
(You might know those already)
For properties on classes:
Using property() on classmethods
How to make a class property?
Assuming I have a class which requires a function (or should I say method) which is:
independent from my class instance - doesn't need self argument;
is called only inside my class object
I won't need access to it at any point (to override it for example);
should I (A) place it inside the class and mark it as a #staticmethod or should I (B) define it outside my class object (but in the same namespace)? Why?
Example:
class A:
def __init__(self, my_int):
self.my_int = my_int
def my_int_and_4(self):
print(self.adder(self.my_int,4))
#staticmethod
def adder(a,b):
return a+b
or
def adder(a,b):
return a+b
class B:
def __init__(self, my_int):
self.my_int = my_int
def my_int_and_4(self):
print(adder(self.my_int,4))
EDIT: maybe the example is a bit oversimplified. I should have added that my version of "adder" is specificly used with my class and in no other case.
This is a textbook use case for a private static method.
They key point here is that you should make it a private method of that class. That way you're certain nothing else will use it and depend on its implementation. You'll be free to change it in the future, or even delete it, without breaking anything outside that class.
And yeah, make it static, because you can.
In Python, there is no way to make a method truly private, but by convention, prefixing the method name by a _ means it should be treated as private.
#staticmethod
def _adder(a,b): ## <-- note the _
return a+b
If at some point you suddenly need to use it outside the class, then exposing it will be no trouble at all, e.g. using a public wrapper method.
The reverse, however, isn't true; once exposed, it's difficult to retract that exposure.
I would definitely use a private static method in this case, for the reasons described by Jean-Francois Corbett. There are two types of methods in Python that belong to the class itself, rather than an instance: class methods and static methods.
The first parameter of a class method (created with #classmethod) references the class in exactly the same manner that the first parameter of an instance method (self) references an instance. It is the equivalent of static methods in most other languages. If your method requires access to other class members, use a class method.
A static method (created with #staticmethod) does not contain a reference to the class, and therefore cannot reference other class members. It's generally used for private helper methods and the like.
For your adder method, I would definitely use a static method. However, in this modified (and rather useless) version, a class method is necessary:
class A:
x = 1
def __init__(self, my_int):
self.my_int = my_int
def my_int_and_4(self):
print(self._adder(self.my_int,4))
#staticmethod
def _adder(a,b):
return a+b
#classmethod
def _increment(cls, n):
return n + cls.x
Both approaches will work, so it's the matter of readability and following conventions.
Does the method need to look at the instance's private attributes? If yes, it's a good reason to keep it in the class.
Is the method only used as a helper for one of different methods? If yes, it's a good reason to put it right after the calling method so that the code can be read top-down.
Does the method seem to make sense outside of the context of your class? If yes, it's a good reason to make it a free function or even move it to a different file, like utils.
↑↑↑ It does NOT
Let's say I have a class with some utility methods:
class Utils:
#staticmethod
def do_stuff():
# some stuff
Utils.do_other_stuff()
# some more stuff
#staticmethod
def do_other_stuff():
# somehting other
I don't really like the Utils.do_other_stuff() part.
If it was instance method, I would reference it via self, but here I have to write the full class name.
Is this where #classmethod is a good idea to use, or is it overkill? - or is there some cleaner way to write Utils, perhaps with a module?
If you need a reference to the current class (which could be a subclass), then definitely make it a classmethod.
That's not overkill; the amount of work Python does to bind a class method is no different from a static method, or a regular method for that matter.
However, don't use classes here unless you have to. Python is not Java, you do not have to use a class and functions can live outside of classes just fine.
#classmethod is the way to go:
class Utils:
#classmethod
def do_stuff(cls):
# some stuff
cls.do_other_stuff()
# some more stuff
#classmethod
def do_other_stuff(cls):
# somehting other
Just a clarification related to Martijn Pieters comment: I usually avoid #staticmethod and I prefer to adopt always #classmethod because it allows me to refer to the class and its methods. (I don't agree with suggestions about writing modules with functions… I'm an OOP supporter :P)
It doesn't look like Utils will ever be subclassed or instantiated; it's just a wrapper for static methods. In that case, these methods can all be turned into module-level functions, perhaps in a separate utils module:
# No class!
def do_stuff():
...
do_other_stuff()
...
def do_other_stuff():
...
I am writing a python API/server to allow an external device (microcontroller) to remotely call methods of an object by sending a string with the name of the method. These methods would be stored in a dictionary. e.g. :
class Server:
...
functions = {}
def register(self, func):
self.functions[func.__name__] = func
def call(self, func_name, args):
self.functions[func_name](*args)
...
I know that I could define functions externally to the class definition and register them manually, but I would really like that the registering step would be done automatically. Consider the following class:
class MyServer(Server):
...
def add(self,a,b):
print a+b
def sub(self,a,b):
print a-b
...
It would work by subclassing a server class and by defining methods to be called. How could I get the methods to be automatically registered in the functions dictionary?
One way that I thought it could be done is with a metaclass that look at a pattern in the methods name add if a match is found, add that methods to the functions dictionary. It seems overkill...
Would it be possible to decorate the methods to be registered? Can someone give me a hint to the simplest solution to this problem?
There is no need to construct a dictionary, just use the getattr() built-in function:
def call(self, func_name, args):
getattr(self, func_name)(*args)
Python actually uses a dictionary to access attributes on objects anyway (it's called __dict__, - but using getattr() is better than accessing it directly).
If you really want to construct that dict for some reason, then look at the inspect module:
def __init__(self, ...):
self.functions = dict(inspect.getmembers(self, inspect.ismethod))
If you want to pick specific methods, you could use a decorator to do that, but as BrenBarn points out, the instance doesn't exist at the time the methods are decorated, so you need to use the mark and recapture technique to do what you want.
Look at this code:
class MyClass():
# Why does this give me "NameError: name 'self' is not defined":
mySelf = self
# But this does not?
def myFunction(self):
mySelf2 = self
Basically I want a way for a class to refer to itself without needing to name itself specifically, hence I want self to work for the class, not just methods/functions. How can I achieve this?
EDIT: The point of this is that I'm trying to refer to the class name from inside the class itself with something like self.class._name_ so that the class name isn't hardcoded anywhere in the class's code, and thus it's easier to re-use the code.
EDIT 2: From what I've learned from the answers below, what I'm trying to do is impossible. I'll have to find a different way. Mission abandoned.
EDIT 3: Here is specifically what I'm trying to do:
class simpleObject(object):
def __init__(self, request):
self.request = request
#view_defaults(renderer='string')
class Test(simpleObject):
# this line throws an error because of self
myClassName = self.__class__.__name__
#view_config(route_name=myClassName)
def activateTheView(self):
db = self.request.db
foo = 'bar'
return foo
Note that self is not defined at the time when you want the class to refer to itself for the assignment to work. This is because (in addition to being named arbitrarily), self refers to instances and not classes. At the time that the suspect line of code attempts to run, there is as of yet no class for it to refer to. Not that it would refer to the class if there was.
In a method, you can always use type(self). That will get the subclass of MyClass that created the current instance. If you want to hard-code to MyClass, that name will be available in the global scope of the methods. This will allow you to do everything that your example would allow if it actually worked. E.g, you can just do MyClass.some_attribute inside your methods.
You probably want to modify the class attributes after class creation. This can be done with decorators or on an ad-hoc basis. Metaclasses may be a better fit. Without knowing what you actually want to do though, it's impossible to say.
UPDATE:
Here's some code to do what you want. It uses a metaclass AutoViewConfigMeta and a new decorator to mark the methods that you want view_config applied to. I spoofed the view_config decorator. It prints out the class name when it's called though to prove that it has access to it. The metaclass __new__ just loops through the class dictionary and looks for methods that were marked by the auto_view_config decorator. It cleans off the mark and applies the view_config decorator with the appropriate class name.
Here's the code.
# This just spoofs the view_config decorator.
def view_config(route=''):
def dec(f):
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
print "route={0}".format(route)
return f(*args, **kwargs)
return wrapper
return dec
# Apply this decorator to methods for which you want to call view_config with
# the class name. It will tag them. The metaclass will apply view_config once it
# has the class name.
def auto_view_config(f):
f.auto_view_config = True
return f
class AutoViewConfigMeta(type):
def __new__(mcls, name, bases, dict_):
#This is called during class creation. _dict is the namespace of the class and
# name is it's name. So the idea is to pull out the methods that need
# view_config applied to them and manually apply them with the class name.
# We'll recognize them because they will have the auto_view_config attribute
# set on them by the `auto_view_config` decorator. Then use type to create
# the class and return it.
for item in dict_:
if hasattr(dict_[item], 'auto_view_config'):
method = dict_[item]
del method.auto_view_config # Clean up after ourselves.
# The next line is the manual form of applying a decorator.
dict_[item] = view_config(route=name)(method)
# Call out to type to actually create the class with the modified dict.
return type.__new__(mcls, name, bases, dict_)
class simpleObject(object):
__metaclass__ = AutoViewConfigMeta
class Test(simpleObject):
#auto_view_config
def activateTheView(self):
foo = 'bar'
print foo
if __name__=='__main__':
t = Test()
t.activateTheView()
Let me know if you have any questions.
Python has an "explict is better than implicit" design philosophy.
Many languages have an implicit pointer or variable in the scope of a method that (e.g. this in C++) that refers to the object through which the method was invoked. Python does not have this. Here, all bound methods will have an extra first argument that is the object through which the method was invoked. You can call it anything you want (self is not a keyword like this in C++). The name self is convention rather than a syntactic rule.
Your method myFunction defines the variable self as a parameter so it works. There's no such variable at the class level so it's erroring out.
So much for the explanation. I'm not aware of a straightforward way for you to do what you want and I've never seen such requirement in Python. Can you detail why you want to do such a thing? Perhaps there's an assumption that you're making which can be handled in another way using Python.
self is just a name, your self in this case is a class variable and not this for the object using which it is called,
self is treated as a normal variable and it is not defined, where as the self in the function comes from the object used for calling.
you want to treat the object reference in self as a class variable which is not possible.
self isn't a keyword, it's just a convention. The methods are attributes of the class object (not the instance), but they receive the instance as their first argument. You could rename the argument to xyzzy if you wanted and it would still work the same way.
But (as should be obvious) you can't refer to a method argument outside the body of the method. Inside a class block but outside of any method, self is undefined. And the concept wouldn't even make sense -- at the time the class block is being evaluated, no instance of the class can possibly exist yet.
Because the name self is explicitly defined as part of the arguments to myFunction. The first argument to a method is the instance that the method was called on; in the class body, there isn't an "instance we're dealing with", because the class body deals with every possible instance of the class (including ones that don't necessarily exist yet) - so, there isn't a particular object that could be called self.
If you want to refer to the class itself, rather than some instance of it, this is spelled self.__class__ (or, for new-style classes in Py2 and all classes in Py3, type(self)) anywhere self exists. If you want to be able to deal with this in situations where self doesn't exist, then you may want to look at class methods which aren't associated with any particular instance, and so take the class itself in place of self. If you really need to do this in the class body (and, you probably don't), you'll just have to call it by name.
You can't refer to the class itself within the class body because the class doesn't exist at the time that the class body is executed. (If the previous sentence is confusing, reading up about metaclasses will either clear this up or make you more confused.)
Within an instance method, you can refer to the class of the instance with self.__class__, but be careful here. This will be the instance's actual class, which through the power of inheritance might not be the class in which the method was defined.
Within a class method, the class is passed in as the first argument, much like instances are the first argument to instance methods:
class MyClass(object):
#classmethod
def foo(cls):
print cls.__name__
MyClass.foo() # Should print "MyClass"
As with instance methods, the actual class might differ due to inheritance.
class OtherClass(MyClass):
pass
OtherClass.foo() # Should print "OtherClass"
If you really need to refer to MyClass within a method of MyClass, you're pretty much going to have to refer to it as MyClass unless you use magic. This sort of magic is more trouble than it is worth.