I'm using the following class (it's from Airflow code, so I can't modify it):
class TriggerRule:
"""Class with task's trigger rules."""
ALL_SUCCESS = 'all_success'
ALL_FAILED = 'all_failed'
ALL_DONE = 'all_done'
ONE_SUCCESS = 'one_success'
ONE_FAILED = 'one_failed'
NONE_FAILED = 'none_failed'
NONE_FAILED_OR_SKIPPED = 'none_failed_or_skipped'
NONE_SKIPPED = 'none_skipped'
DUMMY = 'dummy'
_ALL_TRIGGER_RULES: Set[str] = set()
#classmethod
def is_valid(cls, trigger_rule):
"""Validates a trigger rule."""
return trigger_rule in cls.all_triggers()
#classmethod
def all_triggers(cls):
"""Returns all trigger rules."""
if not cls._ALL_TRIGGER_RULES:
cls._ALL_TRIGGER_RULES = {
getattr(cls, attr)
for attr in dir(cls)
if not attr.startswith("_") and not callable(getattr(cls, attr))
}
return cls._ALL_TRIGGER_RULES
Let's say I have this function:
def print_rule(rule):
print(rule)
and I want to type hint the parameter rule so it must be one of the rules listed in the TriggerRule class.
print_color(TriggerRule.ALL_FAILED) # OK
print_color('one_success') # I don't care if it complains or not
print_color('foo') # I want it to complain
Is this possible? I don't want to type it as str because I don't want to allow any string.
I'm using Python 3.8, but if this is possible in a newer version, I'd like to know as well.
In this example, what should be done so that print(left_hand.number_of_fingers) returns 4 and not 5?
class Hand:
def __init__(self, fingers:list):
self.fingers = fingers
self.number_of_fingers = len(fingers)
left_hand = Hand(["thumb", "index", "middle", "ring", "pinkie"])
left_hand.fingers.pop()
print(left_hand.number_of_fingers) # I want this to actualize and be 4, not 5
I found a solution using #property
class Hand:
def __init__(self, fingers:list):
self.fingers = fingers
#property
def number_of_fingers(self):
return len(self.fingers)
But I'm not satisfied because of a computational power issue, if computing number_of_fingers was expensive we would only want to compute it whenever fingers is modified, not every time the user asks for the attribute number_of_fingers.
Now I found a not elegant solution to solve the issue with computational power:
class Hand:
def __init__(self, fingers:list):
self.fingers = fingers
self.old_fingers = fingers
self.number_of_fingers = len(fingers)
def get_number_of_fingers(self):
if self.fingers != self.old_fingers:
self.old_fingers = self.fingers
self.number_of_fingers = len(self.fingers)
return self.number_of_fingers
The problem is that the underlying list in your Hand class, i.e. self.fingers, is not sufficiently encapsulated so that any user can be modifying it, for example by calling left_hand.fingers.pop() or even by assigning to it a new list. Therefore, you cannot assume that it has not been modified between calls to number_of_fingers and therefore you have no choice but to compute its length in that call.
The solution is to control what clients of your class can and cannot do. The easiest way to do this is by using name mangling. That is, you prefix your attribute names with two leading underscore characters. This makes it difficult (although not impossible) for clients of your class to access these attributes from outside of the class (we assume that your users are not intentionally malicious). And therefore we have to provide now a pop method:
class Hand:
def __init__(self, fingers:list):
self.__fingers = fingers
self.__number_of_fingers = len(fingers)
def pop(self):
assert(self.__fingers)
self.__number_of_fingers -= 1
return self.__fingers.pop()
#property
def number_of_fingers(self):
return self.__number_of_fingers
left_hand = Hand(["thumb", "index", "middle", "ring", "pinkie"])
print(left_hand.pop())
print(left_hand.number_of_fingers)
Prints:
pinkie
4
I am not suggesting that you actually do the following, but if you wanted to you can get more elaborate by creating special class decorators #Private and #Public that will wrap your class in a new class and check access to your attributes ensuring that you are not accessing those attributes defined to be private. You use either the #Private decorator to define those attributes/methods that are private (everything else is considered public) or the #Public decorator to define those attributes/methods that are public (everything else is considered private), but not both. You would typically name your private attributes with a leading single underscore, which is the convention that tells users that the attribute/method is to be considered private.
This is meant more to catch inadvertent access of attributes that are meant to be private. If you execute the code with the -O Python flag, then no runtime checks will be made.
def accessControl(failIf):
def onDecorator(aClass):
if not __debug__:
return aClass
else:
class onInstance:
def __init__(self, *args, **kargs):
self.__wrapped = aClass(*args, **kargs)
def __getattr__(self, attr):
if failIf(attr):
raise TypeError('private attribute fetch: ' + attr)
else:
return getattr(self.__wrapped, attr)
def __setattr__(self, attr, value):
if attr == '_onInstance__wrapped':
self.__dict__[attr] = value
elif failIf(attr):
raise TypeError('private attribute change: ' + attr)
else:
setattr(self.__wrapped, attr, value)
return onInstance
return onDecorator
def Private(*attributes):
return accessControl(failIf=(lambda attr: attr in attributes))
def Public(*attributes):
return accessControl(failIf=(lambda attr: attr not in attributes))
#Private('_fingers', '_number_of_fingers')
class Hand:
def __init__(self, fingers:list):
self._fingers = fingers
self._number_of_fingers = len(fingers)
def pop(self):
assert(self._fingers)
self._number_of_fingers -= 1
return self._fingers.pop()
#property
def number_of_fingers(self):
return self._number_of_fingers
left_hand = Hand(["thumb", "index", "middle", "ring", "pinkie"])
print(left_hand.pop())
print(left_hand.number_of_fingers)
# Thsis will throw an exception:
print(left_hand._fingers)
Prints:
pinkie
4
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Booboo\test\test.py", line 50, in <module>
print(left_hand._fingers)
File "C:\Booboo\test\test.py", line 9, in __getattr__
raise TypeError('private attribute fetch: ' + attr)
TypeError: private attribute fetch: _fingers
Update
This is the OP's approach using a cache:
class Hand:
def __init__(self, fingers:list):
self._cache = {}
self.fingers = fingers
def get_number_of_fingers(self):
fingers = tuple(self.fingers) # can be key of a dictionary
fingers_length = self._cache.get(fingers)
if fingers_length:
print(self.fingers, 'in cache')
return fingers_length
fingers_length = len(fingers)
self._cache[fingers] = fingers_length
return fingers_length
left_hand_fingers = ["thumb", "index", "middle", "ring", "pinkie"]
right_hand_fingers = ["thumb", "middle", "ring", "pinkie"]
hand = Hand(left_hand_fingers)
print(hand.get_number_of_fingers())
hand.fingers = right_hand_fingers
print(hand.get_number_of_fingers())
hand.fingers = left_hand_fingers
print(hand.get_number_of_fingers())
hand.fingers = right_hand_fingers
print(hand.get_number_of_fingers())
hand.fingers = left_hand_fingers
print(hand.get_number_of_fingers())
Prints:
5
4
['thumb', 'index', 'middle', 'ring', 'pinkie'] in cache
5
['thumb', 'middle', 'ring', 'pinkie'] in cache
4
['thumb', 'index', 'middle', 'ring', 'pinkie'] in cache
5
So here in the first code (without using #property), you will get the output as 5 and not 4, because you are simply assigning the value of len(fingers) to number_of_fingers attribute while initialising a Hand object, and number_of_fingers attribute is not getting linked to fingers.
So even if left_hand.fingers is modified in between the code, it will have no effect on the value of number_of_fingers. One cannot change this behaviour.
Also you don't need that #property, I tested and found that there will be no error if it is not written.
And finally coming to
But I'm not satisfied, because if computing number_of_fingers was expensive we would only want to compute it whenever fingers is modified, not every time the user asks for the attribute number_of_fingers.
Where do you need so much computing power?
I am currently designing a software which needs to manage a certain hardware setup.
The hardware setup is as following :
System - The system contains two identical devices, and has certain functionality relative to the entire system.
Device - Each device contains two identical sub devices, and has certain functionality relative to both sub devices.
Sub device - Each sub device has 4 configurable entities (Controlled via the same hardware command - thus I don't count them as a sub-sub device).
What I want to achieve :
I want to control all configurable entities via the system manager (the entities are counted in a serial way), meaning I would be able to do the following :
system_instance = system_manager_class(some_params)
system_instance.some_func(0) # configure device_manager[0].sub_device_manager[0].entity[0]
system_instance.some_func(5) # configure device_manager[0].sub_device_manager[1].entity[1]
system_instance.some_func(8) # configure device_manager[1].sub_device_manager[1].entity[0]
What I have thought of doing :
I was thinking of creating an abstract class, which contains all sub device functions (with a call to a conversion function) and have the system_manager, device_manager and sub_device_manager inherit it. Thus all classes will have the same function name and I will be able to access them via the system manager.
Something around these lines :
class abs_sub_device():
#staticmethod
def convert_entity(self):
sub_manager = None
sub_entity_num = None
pass
def set_entity_to_2(entity_num):
sub_manager, sub_manager_entity_num = self.convert_entity(entity_num)
sub_manager.some_func(sub_manager_entity_num)
class system_manager(abs_sub_device):
def __init__(self):
self.device_manager_list = [] # Initiliaze device list
self.device_manager_list.append(device_manager())
self.device_manager_list.append(device_manager())
def convert_entity(self, entity_num):
relevant_device_manager = self.device_manager_list[entity_num // 4]
relevant_entity = entity_num % 4
return relevant_device_manage, relevant_entity
class device_manager(abs_sub_device):
def __init__(self):
self.sub_device_manager_list = [] # Initiliaze sub device list
self.sub_device_manager_list.append(sub_device_manager())
self.sub_device_manager_list.append(sub_device_manager())
def convert_entity(self, entity_num):
relevant_sub_device_manager = self.sub_device_manager_list[entity_num // 4]
relevant_entity = entity_num % 4
return relevant_sub_device_manager, relevant_entity
class sub_device_manager(abs_sub_device):
def __init__(self):
self.entity_list = [0] * 4
def set_entity_to_2(self, entity_num):
self.entity_list[entity_num] = 2
The code is for generic understanding of my design, not for actual functionality.
The problem :
It seems to me that the system I am trying to design is really generic and that there must be a built-in python way to do this, or that my entire object oriented look at it is wrong.
I would really like to know if some one has a better way of doing this.
After much thinking, I think I found a pretty generic way to solve the issue, using a combination of decorators, inheritance and dynamic function creation.
The main idea is as following :
1) Each layer dynamically creates all sub layer relevant functions for it self (Inside the init function, using a decorator on the init function)
2) Each function created dynamically converts the entity value according to a convert function (which is a static function of the abs_container_class), and calls the lowers layer function with the same name (see make_convert_function_method).
3) This basically causes all sub layer function to be implemented on the higher level with zero code duplication.
def get_relevant_class_method_list(class_instance):
method_list = [func for func in dir(class_instance) if callable(getattr(class_instance, func)) and not func.startswith("__") and not func.startswith("_")]
return method_list
def make_convert_function_method(name):
def _method(self, entity_num, *args):
sub_manager, sub_manager_entity_num = self._convert_entity(entity_num)
function_to_call = getattr(sub_manager, name)
function_to_call(sub_manager_entity_num, *args)
return _method
def container_class_init_decorator(function_object):
def new_init_function(self, *args):
# Call the init function :
function_object(self, *args)
# Get all relevant methods (Of one sub class is enough)
method_list = get_relevant_class_method_list(self.container_list[0])
# Dynamically create all sub layer functions :
for method_name in method_list:
_method = make_convert_function_method(method_name)
setattr(type(self), method_name, _method)
return new_init_function
class abs_container_class():
#staticmethod
def _convert_entity(self):
sub_manager = None
sub_entity_num = None
pass
class system_manager(abs_container_class):
#container_class_init_decorator
def __init__(self):
self.device_manager_list = [] # Initiliaze device list
self.device_manager_list.append(device_manager())
self.device_manager_list.append(device_manager())
self.container_list = self.device_manager_list
def _convert_entity(self, entity_num):
relevant_device_manager = self.device_manager_list[entity_num // 4]
relevant_entity = entity_num % 4
return relevant_device_manager, relevant_entity
class device_manager(abs_container_class):
#container_class_init_decorator
def __init__(self):
self.sub_device_manager_list = [] # Initiliaze sub device list
self.sub_device_manager_list.append(sub_device_manager())
self.sub_device_manager_list.append(sub_device_manager())
self.container_list = self.sub_device_manager_list
def _convert_entity(self, entity_num):
relevant_sub_device_manager = self.sub_device_manager_list[entity_num // 4]
relevant_entity = entity_num % 4
return relevant_sub_device_manager, relevant_entity
class sub_device_manager():
def __init__(self):
self.entity_list = [0] * 4
def set_entity_to_value(self, entity_num, required_value):
self.entity_list[entity_num] = required_value
print("I set the entity to : {}".format(required_value))
# This is used for auto completion purposes (Using pep convention)
class auto_complete_class(system_manager, device_manager, sub_device_manager):
pass
system_instance = system_manager() # type: auto_complete_class
system_instance.set_entity_to_value(0, 3)
There is still a little issue with this solution, auto-completion would not work since the highest level class has almost no static implemented function.
In order to solve this I cheated a bit, I created an empty class which inherited from all layers and stated to the IDE using pep convention that it is the type of the instance being created (# type: auto_complete_class).
Does this solve your Problem?
class EndDevice:
def __init__(self, entities_num):
self.entities = list(range(entities_num))
#property
def count_entities(self):
return len(self.entities)
def get_entity(self, i):
return str(i)
class Device:
def __init__(self, sub_devices):
self.sub_devices = sub_devices
#property
def count_entities(self):
return sum(sd.count_entities for sd in self.sub_devices)
def get_entity(self, i):
c = 0
for index, sd in enumerate(self.sub_devices):
if c <= i < sd.count_entities + c:
return str(index) + " " + sd.get_entity(i - c)
c += sd.count_entities
raise IndexError(i)
SystemManager = Device # Are the exact same. This also means you can stack that infinite
sub_devices1 = [EndDevice(4) for _ in range(2)]
sub_devices2 = [EndDevice(4) for _ in range(2)]
system_manager = SystemManager([Device(sub_devices1), Device(sub_devices2)])
print(system_manager.get_entity(0))
print(system_manager.get_entity(5))
print(system_manager.get_entity(15))
I can't think of a better way to do this than OOP, but inheritance will only give you one set of low-level functions for the system manager, so it wil be like having one device manager and one sub-device manager. A better thing to do will be, a bit like tkinter widgets, to have one system manager and initialise all the other managers like children in a tree, so:
system = SystemManager()
device1 = DeviceManager(system)
subDevice1 = SubDeviceManager(device1)
device2 = DeviceManager(system)
subDevice2 = SubDeviceManager(device2)
#to execute some_func on subDevice1
system.some_func(0, 0, *someParams)
We can do this by keeping a list of 'children' of the higher-level managers and having functions which reference the children.
class SystemManager:
def __init__(self):
self.children = []
def some_func(self, child, *params):
self.children[child].some_func(*params)
class DeviceManager:
def __init__(self, parent):
parent.children.append(self)
self.children = []
def some_func(self, child, *params):
self.children[child].some_func(*params)
class SubDeviceManager:
def __init__(self, parent):
parent.children.append(self)
#this may or may not have sub-objects, if it does we need to make it its own children list.
def some_func(self, *params):
#do some important stuff
Unfortunately, this does mean that if we want to call a function of a sub-device manager from the system manager without having lots of dots, we will have to define it again again in the system manager. What you can do instead is use the built-in exec() function, which will take in a string input and run it using the Python interpreter:
class SystemManager:
...
def execute(self, child, function, *args):
exec("self.children[child]."+function+"(*args)")
(and keep the device manager the same)
You would then write in the main program:
system.execute(0, "some_func", 0, *someArgs)
Which would call
device1.some_func(0, someArgs)
Here's what I'm thinking:
SystemManager().apply_to_entity(entity_num=7, lambda e: e.value = 2)
class EntitySuperManagerMixin():
"""Mixin to handle logic for managing entity managers."""
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init__(*args, **kwargs) # Supports any kind of __init__ call.
self._entity_manager_list = []
def apply_to_entity(self, entity_num, action):
relevant_entity_manager = self._entity_manager_list[index // 4]
relevant_entity_num = index % 4
return relevant_entity_manager.apply_to_entity(
relevant_entity_num, action)
class SystemManager(EntitySuperManagerMixin):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
# An alias for _entity_manager_list to improve readability.
self.device_manager_list = self._entity_manager_list
self.device_manager_list.extend(DeviceManager() for _ in range(4))
class DeviceManager(EntitySuperManagerMixin):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
# An alias for _entity_manager_list to improve readability.
self.sub_device_manager_list = self._entity_manager_list
self.sub_device_manager_list.extend(SubDeviceManager() for _ in range(4))
class SubDeviceManager():
"""Manages entities, not entity managers, thus doesn't inherit the mixin."""
def __init__(self):
# Entities need to be classes for this idea to work.
self._entity_list = [Entity() for _ in range(4)]
def apply_to_entity(self, entity_num, action):
return action(self._entity_list[entity_num])
class Entity():
def __init__(self, initial_value=0):
self.value = initial_value
With this structure:
Entity-specific functions can stay bound to the Entity class (where it belongs).
Manager-specific code needs to be updated in two places: EntitySuperManagerMixin and the lowest level manager (which would need custom behavior anyway since it deals with the actual entities, not other managers).
The way i see it if you want to dynamically configure different part of system you need some sort of addressing so if you input an ID or address with some parameter the system will know with address on which sub sistem you are talking about and then configure that system with parameter.
OOP is quite ok for that and then you can easily manipulate such data via bitwise operators.
So basic addressing is done via binary system , so to do that in python you need first to implement an address static attribute to your class with perhaps some basic further detailing if system grows.
Basic implementation of addres systems is as follows:
bin(71)
1010 1011
and if we divide it into nibbles
1010 - device manager 10
1011 - sub device manager 11
So in this example we have system of 15 device managers and 15 sub device menagers, and every device and sub device manager has its integer address.So let's say you want to access device manager no10 with sub device manager no11. You would need their address which is in binary 71 and you would go with:
system.config(address, parameter )
Where system.config funcion would look like this:
def config(self,address, parameter):
device_manager = (address&0xF0)>>4 #10
sub_device_manager = address&0xf # 11
if device_manager not in range(self.devices): raise LookupError("device manager not found")
if sub_device_manager not in range(self.devices[device_manager].device): raise LookupError("sub device manager not found")
self.devices[device_manager].device[sub_device_manager].implement(parameter)
In layman you would tell system that sub_device 11 from device 10 needs configuration with this parameter.
So how would this setup look in python inheritance class of some base class of system that could be then composited/inherited to different classes:
class systems(object):
parent = None #global parent element, defaults to None well for simplicity
def __init__(self):
self.addrMASK = 0xf # address mask for that nibble
self.addr = 0x1 # default address of that element
self.devices = [] # list of instances of device
self.data = { #some arbitrary data
"param1":"param_val",
"param2":"param_val",
"param3":"param_val",
}
def addSubSystem(self,sub_system): # connects elements to eachother
# checks for valiability
if not isinstance(sub_system,systems):
raise TypeError("defined input is not a system type") # to prevent passing an integer or something
# appends a device to system data
self.devices.append(sub_system)
# search parent variables from sub device manager to system
obj = self
while 1:
if obj.parent is not None:
obj.parent.addrMASK<<=4 #bitshifts 4 bits
obj.parent.addr <<=4 #bitshifts 4 bits
obj = obj.parent
else:break
#self management , i am lazy guy so i added this part so i wouldn't have to reset addresses manualy
self.addrMASK <<=4 #bitshifts 4 bits
self.addr <<=4 #bitshifts 4 bits
# this element is added so the obj address is coresponding to place in list, this could be done more eloquently but i didn't know what are your limitations
if not self.devices:
self.devices[ len(self.devices)-1 ].addr +=1
self.devices[ len(self.devices)-1 ].parent = self
# helpful for checking data ... gives the address of system
def __repr__(self):
return "system at {0:X}, {1:0X}".format(self.addr,self.addrMASK)
# extra helpful lists data as well
def __str__(self):
data = [ '{} : {}\n'.format(k,v) for k,v in self.data.items() ]
return " ".join([ repr(self),'\n',*data ])
#checking for data, skips looping over sub systems
def __contains__(self,system_index):
return system_index-1 in range(len(self.data))
# applying parameter change -- just an example
def apply(self,par_dict):
if not isinstance(par_dict,dict):
raise TypeError("parameter must be a dict type")
if any( key in self.data.keys() for key in par_dict.keys() ):
for k,v in par_dict.items():
if k in self.data.keys():
self.data[k]=v
else:pass
else:pass
# implementing parameters trough addresses
def implement(self,address,parameter_dictionary):
if address&self.addrMASK==self.addr:
if address-self.addr!=0:
item = (address-self.addr)>>4
self.devices[item-1].implement( address-self.addr,parameter_dictionary )
else:
self.apply(parameter_dictionary)
a = systems()
b = systems()
a.addSubSystem(b)
c = systems()
b.addSubSystem(c)
print('a')
print(a)
print('')
print('b')
print(b)
print('')
print('c')
print(c)
print('')
a.implement(0x100,{"param1":"a"})
a.implement(0x110,{"param1":"b"})
a.implement(0x111,{"param1":"c"})
print('a')
print(a)
print('')
print('b')
print(b)
print('')
print('c')
print(c)
print('')
I'm trying to define a property deleter with a parameter for an attribute of Character class as follows:
class Character(object):
_status = None
#property
def status(self):
""" Return _status if it exists or False if not."""
return self._status
#status.setter
def status(self, status_value):
"""
Receive the status and the duration(continous or not) and add
it for the _status.
"""
if not self._status:
self._status = []
self._status.append(status_value)
#status.deleter
def status(self, status_value):
"""
Delete the specified object from the _status list.
"""
status = [value for value in self._status
if status_value in value.keys()]
if status:
self._status.remove(self._status.index(status[0]))
I'm trying to delete a specific object from the status.
>>>a = Character()
>>>a.status = 'Test'
Would return a list with 1 element:
>>>a.status
['Test']
If i set the status again, the old value persists and new one is added to the list:
>>>a.status = 'Dazed'
>>>a.status
['Test', 'Dazed']
As well I want to delete only a specific value from the list:
>>>del a.status('Dazed')
And the expected result should be:
>>> a.status
['Test']
The problem is that hen I try:
del a.status('Dazed')
The following error occurs:
SyntaxError: can't delete function call
Is there any way to use arguments with a property.deleter?
This is odd behaviour you are trying to create, and would likely trip up users of your class. I certainly wouldn't expect:
self.status = "happy"
to add the new string to an existing list.
As far as I'm aware there is no way to pass an argument to a #property.deleter.
A better approach might be to make the character.status a set (I am assuming that you meant this to be an instance attribute, but this all stands for class attributes too):
class Character(object):
def __init__(self, ..., status=None):
if status is None:
self.status = set()
else:
self.status = set(status)
...
conan = Character(..., status=("happy", "cold"))
conan.status.add("tired")
conan.status.remove("happy")
One advantage of a set is that it prevents duplicates. Also, it provides for very fast membership tests (e.g. if "warm" in conan.status:) and you can find out if two Character instances have any of the same status easily:
if conan.status.intersection(other_character.status):
I'm wondering how could one create a program to detect the following cases in the code, when comparing a variable to hardcoded values, instead of using enumeration, dynamically?
class AccountType:
BBAN = '000'
IBAN = '001'
UBAN = '002'
LBAN = '003'
I would like the code to report (drop a warning into the log) in the following case:
payee_account_type = self.get_payee_account_type(rc) # '001' for ex.
if payee_account_type in ('001', '002'): # Report on unsafe lookup
print 'okay, but not sure about the codes, man'
To encourage people to use the following approach:
payee_account_type = self.get_payee_account_type(rc)
if payee_account_type in (AccountType.IBAN, AccountType.UBAN):
print 'do this for sure'
Which is much safer.
It's not a problem to verify the == and != checks like below:
if payee_account_type == '001':
print 'codes again'
By wrapping payee_account_type into a class, with the following __eq__ implemented:
class Variant:
def __init__(self, value):
self._value = value
def get_value(self):
return self._value
class AccountType:
BBAN = Variant('000')
IBAN = Variant('001')
UBAN = Variant('002')
LBAN = Variant('003')
class AccountTypeWrapper(object):
def __init__(self, account_type):
self._account_type = account_type
def __eq__(self, other):
if isinstance(other, Variant):
# Safe usage
return self._account_type == other.get_value()
# The value is hardcoded
log.warning('Unsafe comparison. Use proper enumeration object')
return self._account_type == other
But what to do with tuple lookups?
I know, I could create a convention method wrapping the lookup, where the check can be done:
if IbanUtils.account_type_in(account_type, AccountType.IBAN, AccountType.UBAN):
pass
class IbanUtils(object):
def account_type_in(self, account_type, *types_to_check):
for type in types_to_check:
if not isinstance(type, Variant):
log.warning('Unsafe usage')
return account_type in types_to_check
But it's not an option for me, because I have a lot of legacy code I cannot touch, but still need to report on.