I've been going through all the Stackoverflow answers on dynamic property setting, but for whatever reason I can't seem to get this to work.
I have a class, Evolution_Base, that in its init creates an instance of Value_Differences. Value_Differences should be dynamically creating properties, based on the list I pass, that returns the function value from _get_df_change:
from pandas import DataFrame
from dataclasses import dataclass
import pandas as pd
class Evolution_Base():
def __init__(self, res_date_0 : DataFrame , res_date_1 : DataFrame):
#dataclass
class Results_Data():
res_date_0_df : DataFrame
res_date_1_df : DataFrame
self.res = Results_Data(res_date_0_df= res_date_0,
res_date_1_df= res_date_1)
property_list = ['abc', 'xyz']
self.difference = Value_Differences(parent = self, property_list=property_list)
# Shared Functions
def _get_df_change(self, df_name, operator = '-'):
df_0 = getattr(self.res.res_date_0_df, df_name.lower())
df_1 = getattr(self.res.res_date_1_df, df_name.lower())
return self._df_change(df_1, df_0, operator=operator)
def _df_change(self, df_1 : pd.DataFrame, df_0 : pd.DataFrame, operator = '-') -> pd.DataFrame:
"""
Returns df_1 <operator | default = -> df_0
"""
# is_numeric mask
m_1 = df_1.select_dtypes('number')
m_0 = df_0.select_dtypes('number')
def label_me(x):
x.columns = ['t_1', 't_0']
return x
if operator == '-':
return label_me(df_1[m_1] - df_0[m_0])
elif operator == '+':
return label_me(df_1[m_1] + df_0[m_0])
class Value_Differences():
def __init__(self, parent : Evolution_Base, property_list = []):
self._parent = parent
for name in property_list:
def func(self, prop_name):
return self._parent._get_df_change(name)
# I've tried the following...
setattr(self, name, property(fget = lambda cls_self: func(cls_self, name)))
setattr(self, name, property(func(self, name)))
setattr(self, name, property(func))
Its driving me nuts... Any help appreciated!
My desired outcome is for:
evolution = Evolution_Base(df_1, df_2)
evolution.difference.abc == evolution._df_change('abc')
evolution.difference.xyz == evolution._df_change('xyz')
EDIT: The simple question is really, how do I setattr for a property function?
As asked
how do I setattr for a property function?
To be usable as a property, the accessor function needs to be wrapped as a property and then assigned as an attribute of the class, not the instance.
That function, meanwhile, needs to have a single unbound parameter - which will be an instance of the class, but is not necessarily the current self. Its logic needs to use the current value of name, but late binding will be an issue because of the desire to create lambdas in a loop.
A clear and simple way to work around this is to define a helper function accepting the Value_Differences instance and the name to use, and then bind the name value eagerly.
Naively:
from functools import partial
def _get_from_parent(name, instance):
return instance._parent._get_df_change(name)
class Value_Differences:
def __init__(self, parent: Evolution_Base, property_list = []):
self._parent = parent
for name in property_list:
setattr(Value_Differences, name, property(
fget = partial(_get_from_parent, name)
))
However, this of course has the issue that every instance of Value_Differences will set properties on the class, thus modifying what properties are available for each other instance. Further, in the case where there are many instances that should have the same properties, the setup work will be repeated at each instance creation.
The apparent goal
It seems that what is really sought, is the ability to create classes dynamically, such that a list of property names is provided and a corresponding class pops into existence, with code filled in for the properties implementing a certain logic.
There are multiple approaches to this.
Factory A: Adding properties to an instantiated template
Just like how functions can be nested within each other and the inner function will be an object that can be modified and returned (as is common when creating a decorator), a class body can appear within a function and a new class object (with the same name) is created every time the function runs. (The code in the OP already does this, for the Results_Data dataclass.)
def example():
class Template:
pass
return Template
>>> TemplateA, TemplateB = example(), example()
>>> TemplateA is TemplateB
False
>>> isinstance(TemplateA(), TemplateB)
False
>>> isinstance(TemplateB(), TemplateA)
False
So, a "factory" for value-difference classes could look like
from functools import partial
def _make_value_comparer(property_names, access_func):
class ValueDifferences:
def __init__(self, parent):
self._parent = parent
for name in property_names:
setattr(Value_Differences, name, property(
fget = partial(access_func, name)
))
return ValueDifferences
Notice that instead of hard-coding a helper, this factory expects to be provided with a function that implements the access logic. That function takes two parameters: a property name, and the ValueDifferences instance. (They're in that order because it's more convenient for functools.partial usage.)
Factory B: Using the type constructor directly
The built-in type in Python has two entirely separate functions.
With one argument, it discloses the type of an object.
With three arguments, it creates a new type. The class syntax is in fact syntactic sugar for a call to this builtin. The arguments are:
a string name (will be set as the __name__ attribute)
a list of classes to use as superclasses (will be set as __bases__)
a dict mapping attribute names to their values (including methods and properties - will become the __dict__, roughly)
In this style, the same factory could look something like:
from functools import partial
def _make_value_comparer(property_names, access_func):
methods = {
name: property(fget = partial(access_func, name)
for name in property_names
}
methods['__init__'] = lambda self, parent: setattr(self, '_parent', parent)
return type('ValueDifferences', [], methods)
Using the factory
In either of the above cases, EvolutionBase would be modified in the same way.
Presumably, every EvolutionBase should use the same ValueDifferences class (i.e., the one that specifically defines abc and xyz properties), so the EvolutionBase class can cache that class as a class attribute, and use it later:
class Evolution_Base():
def _get_from_parent(name, mvd):
# mvd._parent will be an instance of Evolution_Base.
return mvd._parent._get_df_change(name)
_MyValueDifferences = _make_value_comparer(['abc', 'xyz'], _get_from_parent)
def __init__(self, res_date_0 : DataFrame , res_date_1 : DataFrame):
#dataclass
class Results_Data():
res_date_0_df : DataFrame
res_date_1_df : DataFrame
self.res = Results_Data(res_date_0_df= res_date_0,
res_date_1_df= res_date_1)
self.difference = _MyValueDifferences(parent = self)
Notice that the cached _MyValueDifferences class no longer requires a list of property names to be constructed. That's because it was already provided when the class was created. The actual thing that varies per instance of _MyValueDifferences, is the parent, so that's all that gets passed.
Simpler approaches
It seems that the goal is to have a class whose instances are tightly associated with instances of Evolution_Base, providing properties specifically named abc and xyz that are computed using the Evolution_Base's data.
That could just be hard-coded as a nested class:
class Evolution_Base:
class EBValueDifferences:
def __init__(self, parent):
self._parent = parent
#property
def abc(self):
return self._parent._get_df_change('abc')
#property
def xyz(self):
return self._parent._get_df_change('xyz')
def __init__(self, res_date_0 : DataFrame , res_date_1 : DataFrame):
#dataclass
class Results_Data():
res_date_0_df : DataFrame
res_date_1_df : DataFrame
self.res = Results_Data(res_date_0_df = res_date_0,
res_date_1_df = res_date_1)
self.difference = EBValueDifferences(self)
# _get_df_change etc. as before
Even simpler, provide corresponding properties directly on Evolution_Base:
class Evolution_Base:
#property
def abc_difference(self):
return self._get_df_change('abc')
#property
def xyz_difference(self):
return self._get_df_change('xyz')
def __init__(self, res_date_0 : DataFrame , res_date_1 : DataFrame):
#dataclass
class Results_Data():
res_date_0_df : DataFrame
res_date_1_df : DataFrame
self.res = Results_Data(res_date_0_df = res_date_0,
res_date_1_df = res_date_1)
# _get_df_change etc. as before
# client code now calls my_evolution_base.abc_difference
# instead of my_evolution_base.difference.abc
If there are a lot of such properties, they could be attached using a much simpler dynamic approach (that would still be reusable for other classes that define a _get_df_change):
def add_df_change_property(name, cls):
setattr(
cls, f'{name}_difference',
property(fget = lambda instance: instance._get_df_change(name))
)
which can also be adapted for use as a decorator:
from functools import partial
def exposes_df_change(name):
return partial(add_df_change_property, name)
#exposes_df_change('abc')
#exposes_df_change('def')
class Evolution_Base:
# `self.difference` can be removed, no other changes needed
This is quite the rabbit hole. Impossible is a big call, but I will say this: they don't intend you to do this. The 'Pythonic' way of achieving your example use case is the __getattr__ method. You could also override the __dir__ method to insert your custom attributes for discoverability.
This is the code for that:
class Value_Differences():
def __init__(self, parent : Evolution_Base, property_list = []):
self._parent = parent
self._property_list = property_list
def __dir__(self):
return sorted(set(
dir(super(Value_Differences, self)) + \
list(self.__dict__.keys()) + self._property_list))
def __getattr__(self, __name: str):
if __name in self._property_list:
return self._parent._get_df_change(__name)
But that wasn't the question, and respect for a really, really interesting question. This is one of those things that you look at and say 'hmm, should be possible' and can get almost to a solution. I initially thought what you asked for was technically possible, just very hacky to achieve. But it turns out that it would be very, very weird hackery if it was possible.
Two small foundational things to start with:
Remind ourselves of the hierarchy of Python objects that the runtime is working with when defining and instantiating classes:
The metaclass (defaulting to type), which is used to build classes. I'm going to refer to this as the Metaclass Type Object (MTO).
The class definition, which is used to build objects. I'm going to refer to this as the Class Type Object (CTO).
And the class instance or object, which I'll refer to as the Class Instance Object (CIO).
MTOs are subclasses of type. CTOs are subclasses of object. CIOs are instances of CTOs, but instantiated by MTOs.
Python runs code inside class definitions as if it was running a function:
class Class1:
print("1")
def __init__(self, v1):
print("4")
print("2")
print("3")
c1 = Class1("x")
print("5")
gives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Put these two things together with:
class Class1:
def attr1_get(self):
return 'attr1 value'
attr1 = property(attr1_get)
we are defining a function attr1_get as part of the class definition. We are then running an inline piece of code that creates an object of type property. Note that this is just the name of the object's type - it isn't a property as you would describe it. Just an object with some attributes, being references to various functions. We then assign that object to an attribute in the class we are defining.
In the terms I used above, once that code is run we have a CTO instantiated as an object in memory that contains an attribute attr1 of type property (an object subclass, containing a bunch of attributes itself - one of which is a reference to the function attr1_get).
That can be used to instantiate an object, the CIO.
This is where the MTO comes in. You instantiate the property object while defining the CTO so that when the runtime applies the MTO to create the CIO from the CTO, an attribute on the CIO will be formed with a custom getter function for that attribute rather than the 'standard' getter function the runtime would use. The property object means something to the type object when it is building a new object.
So when we run:
c1 = Class1()
we don't get a CIO c1 with an attribute attr1 that is an object of type property. The metaclass of type type formed a set of references against the attribute's internal state to all the functions we stored in the property object. Note that this is happening inside the runtime, and you can't call this directly from your code - you just tell the type metaclass to do it by using the property wrapper object.
So if you directly assign a property() result to an attribute of a CIO, you have a Pythonic object assigned that references some functions, but the internal state for the runtime to use to reference the getter, setter, etc. is not set up. The getter of an attribute that contains a property object is the standard getter and so returns the object instance, and not the result of the functions it wraps,
This next bit of code demonstrates how this flows:
print("Let's begin")
class MetaClass1(type):
print("Starting to define MetaClass1")
def __new__(cls, name, bases, dct):
x = super().__new__(cls, name, bases, dct)
print("Metaclass1 __new__({})".format(str(cls)))
return x
print("__new__ of MetaClass1 is defined")
def __init__(cls, name, bases, dct):
print("Metaclass1 __init__({})".format(str(cls)))
print("__init__ of MetaClass1 is defined")
print("Metaclass is defined")
class Class1(object,metaclass=MetaClass1):
print("Starting to define Class1")
def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
print("Class1 __new__({})".format(str(cls)))
return super(Class1, cls).__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
print("__new__ of Class1 is defined")
def __init__(self):
print("Class1 __init__({})".format(str(self)))
print("__init__ of Class1 is defined")
def g1(self):
return 'attr1 value'
print("g1 of Class1 is defined")
attr1 = property(g1)
print("Class1.attr1 = ", attr1)
print("attr1 of Class1 is defined")
def addProperty(self, name, getter):
setattr(self, name, property(getter))
print("self.", name, " = ", getattr(self, name))
print("addProperty of Class1 is defined")
print("Class is defined")
c1 = Class1()
print("Instance is created")
print(c1.attr1)
def g2(cls):
return 'attr2 value'
c1.addProperty('attr2', g2)
print(c1.attr2)
I have put all those print statements there to demonstrate the order in which things happen very clearly.
In the middle, you see:
g1 of Class1 is defined
Class1.attr1 = <property object at 0x105115c10>
attr1 of Class1 is defined
We have created an object of type property and assigned it to a class attribute.
Continuing:
addProperty of Class1 is defined
Metaclass1 __new__(<class '__main__.MetaClass1'>)
Metaclass1 __init__(<class '__main__.Class1'>)
Class is defined
The metaclass got instantiated, being passed first itself (__new__) and then the class it will work on (__init__). This happened right as we stepped out of the class definition. I have only included the metaclass to show what will happen with the type metaclass by default.
Then:
Class1 __new__(<class '__main__.Class1'>)
Class1 __init__(<__main__.Class1 object at 0x105124c10>)
Instance is created
attr1 value
self. attr2 = <property object at 0x105115cb0>
<property object at 0x105115cb0>
Class1 is instantiated, providing first its type to __new__ and then its instance to __init__.
We see that attr1 is instantiated properly, but attr2 is not. That is because setattr is being called once the class instance is already constructed and is just saying attr2 is an instance of the class property and not defining attr2 as the actual runtime construct of a property.
Which is made more clear if we run:
print(c1.attr2.fget(c1))
print(c1.attr1.fget(c1))
attr2 (a property object) isn't aware of the class or instance of the containing attribute's parent. The function it wraps still needs to be given the instance to work on.
attr1 doesn't know what to do with that, because as far as it is concerned it is a string object, and has no concept of how the runtime is mapping its getter.
The fundamental reason why what you tried doesn't work is that a property, a use case of a descriptor, by design must be stored as a class variable, not as an instance attribute.
Excerpt from the documentation of descriptor:
To use the descriptor, it must be stored as a class variable in
another class:
To create a class with dynamically named properties that has access to a parent class, one elegant approach is to create the class within a method of the main class, and use setattr to create class attributes with dynamic names and property objects. A class created in the closure of a method automatically has access to the self object of the parent instance, avoiding having to manage a clunky _parent attribute like you do in your attempt:
class Evolution_Base:
def __init__(self, property_list):
self.property_list = property_list
self._difference = None
#property
def difference(self):
if not self._difference:
class Value_Differences:
pass
for name in self.property_list:
# use default value to store the value of name in each iteration
def func(obj, prop_name=name):
return self._get_df_change(prop_name) # access self via closure
setattr(Value_Differences, name, property(func))
self._difference = Value_Differences()
return self._difference
def _get_df_change(self, df_name):
return f'df change of {df_name}' # simplified return value for demo purposes
so that:
evolution = Evolution_Base(['abc', 'xyz'])
print(evolution.difference.abc)
print(evolution.difference.xyz)
would output:
df change of abc
df change of xyz
Demo: https://replit.com/#blhsing/ExtralargeNaturalCoordinate
Responding directly to your question, you can create a class:
class FooBar:
def __init__(self, props):
def make_prop(name):
return property(lambda accessor_self: self._prop_impl(name))
self.accessor = type(
'Accessor',
tuple(),
{p: make_prop(p) for p in props}
)()
def _prop_impl(self, arg):
return arg
o = FooBar(['foo', 'bar'])
assert o.accessor.foo == o._prop_impl('foo')
assert o.accessor.bar == o._prop_impl('bar')
Further, it would be beneficiary to cache created class to make equivalent objects more similar and eliminate potential issues with equality comparison.
That said, I am not sure if this is desired. There's little benefit of replacing method call syntax (o.f('a')) with property access (o.a). I believe it can be detrimental on multiple accounts: dynamic properties are confusing, harder to document, etc., finally while none of this is strictly guaranteed in crazy world of dynamic python -- they kind of communicate wrong message: that the access is cheap and does not involve computation and that perhaps you can attempt to write to it.
I think that when you define the function func in the loop, it closes over the current value of the name variable, not the value of the name variable at the time the property is accessed. To fix this, you can use a lambda function to create a closure that captures the value of name at the time the property is defined.
class Value_Differences():
def __init__(self, parent : Evolution_Base, property_list = []):
self._parent = parent
for name in property_list:
setattr(self, name, property(fget = lambda self, name=name: self._parent._get_df_change(name)))
Does this help you ?
The simple question is really, how do I setattr for a property function?
In python we can set dynamic attributes like this:
class DynamicProperties():
def __init__(self, property_list):
self.property_list = property_list
def add_properties(self):
for name in self.property_list:
setattr(self.__class__, name, property(fget=lambda self: 1))
dync = DynamicProperties(['a', 'b'])
dync.add_properties()
print(dync.a) # prints 1
print(dync.b) # prints 1
Correct me if I am wrong but from reviewing your code, you want to create a dynamic attributes then set their value to a specific function call within the same class, where the passed in data is passed in attributes in the constructor " init " this is achievable, an example:
class DynamicProperties():
def __init__(self, property_list, data1, data2):
self.property_list = property_list
self.data1 = data1
self.data2 = data2
def add_properties(self):
for name in self.property_list:
setattr(self.__class__, name, property(fget=lambda self: self.change(self.data1, self.data2) ))
def change(self, data1, data2):
return data1 - data2
dync = DynamicProperties(['a', 'b'], 1, 2)
dync.add_properties()
print(dync.a == dync.change(1, 2)) # prints true
print(dync.b == dync.change(1,2)) # prints true
You just have to add more complexity to the member, __getattr__ / __setattr__ gives you the string, so it can be interpreted as needed. The biggest "problem" doing this is that the return might no be consistent and piping it back to a library that expect an object to have a specific behavior can cause soft errors.
This example is not the same as yours, but it has the same concept, manipulate columns with members. To get a copy with changes a set is not needed, with a copy, modify and return, the new instance can be created with whatever needed.
For example, the __getattr__ in this line will:
Check and interpret the string xyz_mull_0
Validate that the members and the operand exists
Make a copy of data_a
Modify the copy and return it
var = data_a.xyz_mull_0()
This looks more complex that it actually is, with the same instance members its clear what it is doing, but the _of modifier needs a callback, this is because the __getattr__ can only have one parameter, so it needs to save the attr and return a callback to be called with the other instance that then will call back to the __getattr__ and complete the rest of the function.
import re
class FlexibleFrame:
operand_mod = {
'sub': lambda a, b: a - b,
'add': lambda a, b: a + b,
'div': lambda a, b: a / b,
'mod': lambda a, b: a % b,
'mull': lambda a, b: a * b,
}
#staticmethod
def add_operand(name, func):
if name not in FlexibleFrame.operand_mod.keys():
FlexibleFrame.operand_mod[name] = func
# This makes this class subscriptable
def __getitem__(self, item):
return self.__dict__[item]
# Uses:
# -> object.value
# -> object.member()
# -> object.<name>_<operand>_<name|int>()
# -> object.<name>_<operand>_<name|int>_<flow>()
def __getattr__(self, attr):
if re.match(r'^[a-zA-Z]+_[a-zA-Z]+_[a-zA-Z0-9]+(_of)?$', attr):
seg = attr.split('_')
var_a, operand, var_b = seg[0:3]
# If there is a _of: the second operand is from the other
# instance, the _of is removed and a callback is returned
if len(seg) == 4:
self.__attr_ref = '_'.join(seg[0:3])
return self.__getattr_of
# Checks if this was a _of attribute and resets it
if self.__back_ref is not None:
other = self.__back_ref
self.__back_ref = None
self.__attr_ref = None
else:
other = self
if var_a not in self.__dict__:
raise AttributeError(
f'No match of {var_a} in (primary) {__class__.__name__}'
)
if operand not in FlexibleFrame.operand_mod.keys():
raise AttributeError(
f'No match of operand {operand}'
)
# The return is a copy of self, if not the instance
# is getting modified making x = a.b() useless
ret = FlexibleFrame(**self.__dict__)
# Checks if the second operand is a int
if re.match(r'^\d+$', var_b) :
ref_b_num = int(var_b)
for i in range(len(self[var_a])):
ret[var_a][i] = FlexibleFrame.operand_mod[operand](
self[var_a][i], ref_b_num
)
elif var_b in other.__dict__:
for i in range(len(self[var_a])):
# out_index = operand[type](in_a_index, in_b_index)
ret[var_a][i] = FlexibleFrame.operand_mod[operand](
self[var_a][i], other[var_b][i]
)
else:
raise AttributeError(
f'No match of {var_b} in (secondary) {__class__.__name__}'
)
# This swaps the .member to a .member()
# it also adds and extra () in __getattr_of
return lambda: ret
# return ret
if attr in self.__dict__:
return self[attr]
raise AttributeError(
f'No match of {attr} in {__class__.__name__}'
)
def __getattr_of(self, other):
self.__back_ref = other
return self.__getattr__(self.__attr_ref)()
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
self.__back_ref = None
self.__attr_ref = None
#TODO: Check if data columns match in size
# if not, implement column_<name>_filler=<default>
for i in kwargs:
self.__dict__[i] = kwargs[i]
if __name__ == '__main__':
data_a = FlexibleFrame(**{
'abc': [i for i in range(10)],
'nmv': [i for i in range(10)],
'xyz': [i for i in range(10)],
})
data_b = FlexibleFrame(**{
'fee': [i + 10 for i in range(10)],
'foo': [i + 10 for i in range(10)],
})
FlexibleFrame.add_operand('set', lambda a, b: b)
var = data_a.xyz_mull_0()
var = var.abc_set_xyz()
var = var.xyz_add_fee_of(data_b)
As a extra thing, lambdas in python have this thing, so it can make difficult using them when self changes.
It seems you're bending the language to do weird things. I'd take it as a smell that your code is probably getting convoluted but I'm not saying there would never be a use-case for it so here is a minimal example of how to do it:
class Obj:
def _df_change(self, arg):
print('change', arg)
class DynAttributes(Obj):
def __getattr__(self, name):
return self._df_change(name)
class Something:
difference = DynAttributes()
a = Something()
b = Obj()
assert a.difference.hello == b._df_change('hello')
When calling setattr , use self.__class__ instead of self
Code sample:
class A:
def __init__(self,names : List[str]):
for name in names:
setattr(self.__class__,name,property(fget=self.__create_getter(name)))
def __create_getter(self,name: str):
def inner(self):
print(f"invoking {name}")
return 10
return inner
a = A(['x','y'])
print(a.x + 1)
print(a.y + 2)
My question is how to create a class like slice?
slice (built-in type) doesn't have a __dict__ attribute
even that the metaclass of this slice is type.
And it is not using __slots__, and all it's attribute are readonly and it's not overriding
__setattr__ (this i'm not sure about it but look at my code and see if I'm right).
Check this code:
# how slice is removing the __dict__ from the class object
# and the metaclass is type!!
class sliceS(object):
pass
class sliceS0(object):
def __setattr__(self, name, value):
pass
# this means that both have the same
# metaclass type.
print type(slice) == type(sliceS) # prints True
# from what i understand the metaclass is the one
# that is responsible for making the class object
sliceS2 = type('sliceS2', (object,), {})
# witch is the same
# sliceS2 = type.__new__(type, 'sliceS2', (object,), {})
print type(sliceS2) # prints type
# but when i check the list of attribute using dir
print '__dict__' in dir(slice) # prints False
print '__dict__' in dir(sliceS) # prints True
# now when i try to set an attribute on slice
obj_slice = slice(10)
# there is no __dict__ here
print '__dict__' in dir(obj_slice) # prints False
obj_sliceS = sliceS()
try:
obj_slice.x = 1
except AttributeError as e:
# you get AttributeError
# mean you cannot add new properties
print "'slice' object has no attribute 'x'"
obj_sliceS.x = 1 # Ok: x is added to __dict__ of obj_sliceS
print 'x' in obj_sliceS.__dict__ # prints True
# and slice is not using __slots__ because as you see it's not here
print '__slots__' in dir(slice) # print False
# and this why i'm saying it's not overriding the __settattr__
print id(obj_slice.__setattr__) == id(obj_sliceS.__setattr__) # True: it's the same object
obj_sliceS0 = sliceS0()
print id(obj_slice.__setattr__) == id(obj_sliceS0.__setattr__) # False: it's the same object
# so slice have only start, stop, step and are all readonly attribute and it's not overriding the __setattr__
# what technique it's using?!!!!
How to make this kind of first-class object all of it's attributes are readonly and you cannot
add new attributes.
The thing is that Python's built-in slice class is programmed in C. And when you code using the C-Python API you can code the equivalent of attributes accessible with the __slots__ without using any mechanisms visible from the Python side. (You can even have 'real' private attributes, which are virtually impossible with Python only code).
The mechanism used for Python code to be able to prevent a __dict__ for a class' instances and subsequent "any attribute can be set" is the __slots__ exactly the attribute.
However, unlike magic dunder methods that have to be present when the class is actually used, the information on __slots__ is used when the class is created, and only then. So, if what concerns you is to have a visible __slots__ in your final class, you can just remove it from the class before exposing it:
In [8]: class A:
...: __slots__ = "b"
...:
In [9]: del A.__slots__
In [10]: a = A()
In [11]: a.b = 5
In [12]: a.c = 5
------------------------
AttributeError
...
In [13]: A.__slots__
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AttributeError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-13-68a69c802e74> in <module>()
----> 1 A.__slots__
AttributeError: type object 'A' has no attribute '__slots__'
If you won't like a del MyClass.__slots__ line to be visible wherever you declare a class, it is a one-line class decorator:
def slotless(cls):
del cls.__slots__
return cls
#slotless
class MyClass:
__slots__ = "x y".split()
Or, you could use a metaclass to auto-create, and auto-destroy the Python visible __slots__, so that you could declare your descriptors and attributes in the class body, and have the class protected against extra attributes:
class AttrOnly(type):
def __new__(metacls, name, bases, namespace, **kw):
namespace["__slots__"] = list(namespace.keys()) # not sure if "list(" is needed
cls = super().__new__(metacls, name, bases, namespace, **kw)
del cls.__slots__
return cls
class MyClass(metaclass=AttrOnly):
x = int
y = int
If you want pure Python readonly attributes which does not have a visible counterpart in the instance itself (like a ._x which is used by a property descriptor to keep the value of a x attribute), the straightforward way is to customize __setattr__ . Another approach is to have your metaclass to auto-add a read-only property for each attribute on the class creation stage. The metaclass bellow does that and uses the __slots__ class attribute to create the desired descriptors:
class ReadOnlyAttrs(type):
def __new__(metacls, name, bases, namespace, **kw):
def get_setter(attr):
def setter(self, value):
if getattr(self, "_initialized", False):
raise ValueError("Can't set " + attr)
setattr(self, "_" + attr, value)
return setter
slots = namespace.get("__slots__", [])
slots.append("initialized")
def __new__(cls, *args, **kw):
self = object.__new__(cls) # for production code that could have an arbitrary hierarchy, this needs to be done more carefully
for attr, value in kw.items():
setattr(self, attr, value)
self.initialized = True
return self
namespace["__new__"] = __new__
real_slots = []
for attr in slots:
real_slots.append("_" + attr)
namespace[attr] = property(
(lambda attr: lambda self: getattr(self, "_" + attr))(attr), # Getter. Extra lambda needed to create an extra closure containing each attr
get_setter(attr)
)
namespace["__slots__"] = real_slots
cls = super().__new__(metacls, name, bases, namespace, **kw)
del cls.__slots__
return cls
Have in mind you can also customize the class' __dir__ method so that _x shadow attributes would not be seen, if you want to.
I am trying to use pickle to transfer python objects over the wire between 2 servers. I created a simple class, that subclasses dict and I am trying to use pickle for the marshalling:
def value_is_not_none(value):
return value is not None
class CustomDict(dict):
def __init__(self, cond=lambda x: x is not None):
super().__init__()
self.cond = cond
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
if self.cond(value):
dict.__setitem__(self, key, value)
I first tried to use pickle for the marshalling, but when I un-marshalled I received an error related to the lambda expression.
Then I tried to do the marshalling with dill but it seemed the __init__ was not called.
Then I tried again with pickle, but I passed the value_is_not_none() function as the cond parameter - again the __init__() does not seemed to be invoked and the un-marshalling failed on the __setitem__() (cond is None).
Why is that? what am I missing here?
If I try to run the following code:
obj = CustomDict(cond=value_is_not_none)
obj['hello'] = ['world']
payload = pickle.dumps(obj, protocol=pickle.HIGHEST_PROTOCOL)
obj2 = pickle.loads(payload)
it fails with
AttributeError: 'CustomDict' object has no attribute 'cond'
This is a different question than: Python, cPickle, pickling lambda functions
as I tried using dill with lambda and it failed to work, and I also tried passing a function and it also failed.
pickle is loading your dictionary data before it has restored the attributes on your instance. As such the self.cond attribute is not yet set when __setitem__ is called for the dictionary key-value pairs.
Note that pickle will never call __init__; instead it'll create an entirely blank instance and restore the __dict__ attribute namespace on that directly.
You have two options:
default to cond=None and ignore the condition if it is still set to None:
class CustomDict(dict):
def __init__(self, cond=None):
super().__init__()
self.cond = cond
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
if getattr(self, 'cond', None) is None or self.cond(value):
dict.__setitem__(self, key, value)
The getattr() there is needed because a blank instance has no cond attribute at all (it is not set to None, the attribute is entirely missing). You could add cond = None to the class:
class CustomDict(dict):
cond = None
and then just test for if self.cond is None or self.cond(value):.
Define a custom __reduce__ method to control how the initial object is created when restored:
def _default_cond(v): return v is not None
class CustomDict(dict):
def __init__(self, cond=_default_cond):
super().__init__()
self.cond = cond
def __setitem__(self, key, value):
if self.cond(value):
dict.__setitem__(self, key, value)
def __reduce__(self):
return (CustomDict, (self.cond,), None, None, iter(self.items()))
__reduce__ is expected to return a tuple with:
A callable that can be pickled directly (here the class does fine)
A tuple of positional arguments for that callable; on unpickling the first element is called passing in the second as arguments, so by setting this to (self.cond,) we ensure that the new instance is created with cond passed in as an argument and now CustomDict.__init__() will be called.
The next 2 positions are for a __setstate__ method (ignored here) and for list-like types, so we set these to None.
The last element is an iterator for the key-value pairs that pickle then will restore for us.
Note that I replaced the default value for cond with a function here too so you don't have to rely on dill for the pickling.