Calling class-specific method from another class - python

I am working in a class called AlgoSystem, which is given strategy_0 and strategy_1 as inputs under initialization as well as the number of strategies (2 in this case). The strategy classes are stored in a dictionary called "strategies" within the AlgoSystem. Both strategy_0 and strategy_1 are different classes themselves, but both with a function called "__on_tick". These functions I want to call from within the AlgoSystem class.
My current attempt to do this is seen below:
class AlgoSystem:
def __init__(self, strategy_0, strategy_1, numstrategies):
self.var= 1
self.strategies = {0 : strategy_0,
1 : strategy_1}
self.num_strategies = numstrategies
def start(self):
for i in range(self.num_strategies):
self.strategies[i].__on_tick(self.var)
class Strategy_zero:
def __init__(self, x):
self.x = x
def __on_tick(self, var):
self.x = self.x + var
print(self.x)
class Strategy_one:
def __init__(self, y):
self.y = y
def __on_tick(self, var):
self.y = self.y - var
print(self.y)
strategy_0 = Strategy_zero(2)
strategy_1 = Strategy_one(4)
num_strategies = 2
system = AlgoSystem(strategy_0, strategy_1, 2)
system.start()
When I run the code above, I am given the error:
Strategy_zero' object has no attribute '_AlgoSystem__on_tick'
Apparently I'm not calling the class-functions "__on_tick" properly. How should I do this? I need to do it in a way, so I keep track on the changes of the two sub-classes (strategy_0 and strategy_1) through my defined dictionary within AlgoSystem: "strategies".

The double underscore prefix is specifically designed to prevent you from doing exactly what you are doing.
There is no reason for you to use it here. Remove the prefix and can your methods just on_tick.

Double underscore names are hidden names (hidden by obfuscation). I suggest having your on_tick method be called on_tick and try again.

The following code might help clarify what's going on with name-mangling.
class A:
def __mangled(self):
print "Class A name-mangled method"
class B:
def __init__(self):
a = A()
try:
a.__mangled()
except AttributeError:
# an attempt to access a name-mangled method assumes that
# the '_{class_name}' prefix should use 'B' as the class name
print "A instance has no attribute '_B__mangled'"
a._A__mangled()
# prints "Class A name-mangled method"
getattr(a, '_{}__mangled'.format(a.__class__.__name__))()
# same thing, but can be done without knowing the class name
B()
So, you could update self.strategies[i].__on_tick(self.var) to be:
strat = self.strategies[i]
getattr(strat, '_{}__on_tick'.format(strat.__class__.__name__)(self.var)
But, it would probably be best to not precede __on_tick with a double-underscore since it is intended to be accessed outside the class/instance.

Related

How to implement a sole class of methods inside an external class

I have an external class to represent my data idk. Inside the class idk I want to have another class change which will contain various methods to change instances of the class idk. What I've tried is below. Note: this is a simplified example of my actual code
class idk:
def __init__(self):
self.x=1
self.y=2
class change:
def func(self):
self.x=10
self.y=100
var=idk()
var.change.func()
print(var.x, var.y)
However this gives the error:
TypeError: func() missing 1 required positional argument 'self'
How do I change the code to make it work?
Well, first of all, your are getting this error because you are accessing the func function as a class attribute and not by an instance of it (putting a class definition inside another class won't make it an instance).
If it makes sense, you cloud put those "change methods" in the idk class directly (that would be a normal approach):
class idk:
def __init__(self):
self.x = 1
self.y = 2
def func(self):
self.x = 10
self.y = 100
var = idk()
var.func()
print(var.x, var.y) # Output: 10 100
If you really want/need to separate those methods, you could do another class. The way I would implement that class is with static methods where all of them recieve an idk instance as the first parameter:
class idk:
def __init__(self):
self.x = 1
self.y = 2
class idkChanger:
#staticmethod
def func(idk_obj):
idk_obj.x = 10
idk_obj.y = 100
var = idk()
idkChanger.func(var)
print(var.x, var.y) # Output: 10 100
If you really really want/need to have that "changer" class inside of the idk class you can define it there, but this is not common at all. Also, you will have to pass the instance as well, that Changer class:
class idk:
def __init__(self):
self.x = 1
self.y = 2
class Changer:
#staticmethod
def func(idk_obj):
idk_obj.x = 10
idk_obj.y = 100
var = idk()
idk.Changer.func(var)
print(var.x, var.y) # Output: 10 100
Final notes:
You could not mark (decorate) the func as static and it will work the same, but this will bring more confution for several reasons (e.g., you would tecnically saying that func is an instance method. Which is not, because the objects you want to change are not Change's instances but idk's).

Pass attribute to class method

How can I pass class attribute to a class method so that the attribute will be modified?
class foo:
def __init__(self):
self.diamond = 1
self.gold = 10
self.change(self.diamond)
self.change(self.gold)
def change(self, x):
x+=1
model = foo()
print(model.diamond)
output:
1
I want diamond becomes 2.
Is this a good solution for you?
class foo:
def __init__(self):
self.diamond = 1
def change(self):
self.diamond += 1
model = foo()
model.change()
print(model.diamond)
Let me say this first that you have no class method, or class variable in your example. What you have are instance variables and instance methods, note the self keyword. Now, with that said, you can access and modify your instance variables from any instance method, just like #Almog answered earlier.
The x in your change method is a local variable, basically it's not available outside your method. As for how you modify a variable by passing it to a function, it's not doable with your code I think. You would need something like a dataclass, which you can modify. Check out 'PassByValue' and 'PassByReference' concepts relating to this. Maybe someone else here can help with your particular situation.

How does self.x work if x is not a class bound or instance bound variable?

How does self.x work if x is not a class bound or instance bound variable? In this case, is there any benefit to use it?
My Analysis:
In general if we execute a.a1 = 5, interpreter will give NameEror: name a is not defined. It means we can't define variable using letter ., as it is used to call attribute of an object.
If I write code as
a = 5
a.a1 = 10
It gives AttributeError: int object has no attribute x. It was expected.
Now look at my below code
class Example:
p = 1
def __init__(self):
self.q = 2
def my_function(self):
self.x = 5
return self.x
obj = Example()
print(obj.my_function())
print(dir(obj), obj.__dict__)
As x is neither a class bound variable nor an instance bound variable. So I assume x is not an attribute of self but it executes successfully without any error. So I am wondering, how does it work. Please explain it, also let me know the use because as per explanation we can use it.
Doing self.x = 5 you simply create a new attribute which you can later modify, just like an ordinary variable ; except you access it through the instance.
At that moment you are declaring and instantiating a new field for the object of type Example. When in other function, there would be reference to self.x, no error would be thrown. When no declaration was made - runtime error would be raised, for example:
class Example:
p = 1
def __init__(self):
self.q = 2
def my_function(self):
self.x = 5
return self.x
def other(self):
return self.x
obj = Example()
print(obj.other())
print(obj.my_function())
This results in AttributeError: 'Example' object has no attribute 'x'.
One needs to bear in mind execution order, so that the field is declared and instantiated before referenced.
This is standard way of defining attribute. Here you can find more about classes and attributes: https://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/classes.html

How to initialise class attributes?

I currently have the following two ways:
class Venue:
store = Database.store()
ids = [vid for vid in store.find(Venue.id, Venue.type == "Y")]
def __init__(self):
self.a = 1
self.b = 2
OR
class Venue:
#classmethod
def set_venue_ids(cls):
store = Database.store()
cls.ids = [vid for vid in store.find(Venue.id, Venue.type == "Y")]
def __init__(self):
self.a = 1
self.b = 2
And before using/instantiating the class I would call:
Venue.set_venue_ids()
What would be the correct way of achieving this?
If it's the first way, what would I do if the instantiation of the attribute required more complex logic that could be done more simply through the use of a function?
Or is there an entirely different way to structure my code to accomplish what I'm trying to do?
From a purely technical POV, a class is an instance of its metaclass so the metaclass initializer is an obvious candidate for class attributes initialization (at least when you have anything a bit complex).
Now given the canonical lifetime of a class object (usually the whole process), I would definitly not use an attribute here - if anyone adds or removes venues from your database while your process is running, your ids attributes will get out of sync. Why don't you use a classmethod instead to make sure your data are always have up to date ?
Oh and yes, another way to construct your Venue.ids (or any other class attribute requiring non-trivial code) without having complex code at the class top-level polluthing the class namespace (did you noticed that in your first example store becomes a class attributes too, as well as vid if using Python 2.x ?) is to put the code in a plain function and call that function from within your class statement's body, ie:
def list_venue_ids():
store = Database.store()
# I assume `store.find()` returns some iterator (not a `list`)
# if it does return a list, you could just
# `return store.find(...)`.
return list(store.find(Venue.id, Venue.type == "Y"))
class Venue(object):
ids = list_venue_ids()
def __init__(self):
self.a = 1
self.b = 2

Is it safe to replace a self object by another object of the same type in a method?

I would like to replace an object instance by another instance inside a method like this:
class A:
def method1(self):
self = func(self)
The object is retrieved from a database.
It is unlikely that replacing the 'self' variable will accomplish whatever you're trying to do, that couldn't just be accomplished by storing the result of func(self) in a different variable. 'self' is effectively a local variable only defined for the duration of the method call, used to pass in the instance of the class which is being operated upon. Replacing self will not actually replace references to the original instance of the class held by other objects, nor will it create a lasting reference to the new instance which was assigned to it.
As far as I understand, If you are trying to replace the current object with another object of same type (assuming func won't change the object type) from an member function. I think this will achieve that:
class A:
def method1(self):
newObj = func(self)
self.__dict__.update(newObj.__dict__)
It is not a direct answer to the question, but in the posts below there's a solution for what amirouche tried to do:
Python object conversion
Can I dynamically convert an instance of one class to another?
And here's working code sample (Python 3.2.5).
class Men:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def who_are_you(self):
print("I'm a men! My name is " + self.name)
def cast_to(self, sex, name):
self.__class__ = sex
self.name = name
def method_unique_to_men(self):
print('I made The Matrix')
class Women:
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
def who_are_you(self):
print("I'm a women! My name is " + self.name)
def cast_to(self, sex, name):
self.__class__ = sex
self.name = name
def method_unique_to_women(self):
print('I made Cloud Atlas')
men = Men('Larry')
men.who_are_you()
#>>> I'm a men! My name is Larry
men.method_unique_to_men()
#>>> I made The Matrix
men.cast_to(Women, 'Lana')
men.who_are_you()
#>>> I'm a women! My name is Lana
men.method_unique_to_women()
#>>> I made Cloud Atlas
Note the self.__class__ and not self.__class__.__name__. I.e. this technique not only replaces class name, but actually converts an instance of a class (at least both of them have same id()). Also, 1) I don't know whether it is "safe to replace a self object by another object of the same type in [an object own] method"; 2) it works with different types of objects, not only with ones that are of the same type; 3) it works not exactly like amirouche wanted: you can't init class like Class(args), only Class() (I'm not a pro and can't answer why it's like this).
Yes, all that will happen is that you won't be able to reference the current instance of your class A (unless you set another variable to self before you change it.) I wouldn't recommend it though, it makes for less readable code.
Note that you're only changing a variable, just like any other. Doing self = 123 is the same as doing abc = 123. self is only a reference to the current instance within the method. You can't change your instance by setting self.
What func(self) should do is to change the variables of your instance:
def func(obj):
obj.var_a = 123
obj.var_b = 'abc'
Then do this:
class A:
def method1(self):
func(self) # No need to assign self here
In many cases, a good way to achieve what you want is to call __init__ again. For example:
class MyList(list):
def trim(self,n):
self.__init__(self[:-n])
x = MyList([1,2,3,4])
x.trim(2)
assert type(x) == MyList
assert x == [1,2]
Note that this comes with a few assumptions such as the all that you want to change about the object being set in __init__. Also beware that this could cause problems with inheriting classes that redefine __init__ in an incompatible manner.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with this. Haters gonna hate. (Looking at you Pycharm with your in most cases imaginable, there's no point in such reassignment and it indicates an error).
A situation where you could do this is:
some_method(self, ...):
...
if(some_condition):
self = self.some_other_method()
...
return ...
Sure, you could start the method body by reassigning self to some other variable, but if you wouldn't normally do that with other parametres, why do it with self?
One can use the self assignment in a method, to change the class of instance to a derived class.
Of course one could assign it to a new object, but then the use of the new object ripples through the rest of code in the method. Reassiging it to self, leaves the rest of the method untouched.
class aclass:
def methodA(self):
...
if condition:
self = replace_by_derived(self)
# self is now referencing to an instance of a derived class
# with probably the same values for its data attributes
# all code here remains untouched
...
self.methodB() # calls the methodB of derivedclass is condition is True
...
def methodB(self):
# methodB of class aclass
...
class derivedclass(aclass):
def methodB(self):
#methodB of class derivedclass
...
But apart from such a special use case, I don't see any advantages to replace self.
You can make the instance a singleton element of the class
and mark the methods with #classmethod.
from enum import IntEnum
from collections import namedtuple
class kind(IntEnum):
circle = 1
square = 2
def attr(y): return [getattr(y, x) for x in 'k l b u r'.split()]
class Shape(namedtuple('Shape', 'k,l,b,u,r')):
self = None
#classmethod
def __repr__(cls):
return "<Shape({},{},{},{},{}) object at {}>".format(
*(attr(cls.self)+[id(cls.self)]))
#classmethod
def transform(cls, func):
cls.self = cls.self._replace(**func(cls.self))
Shape.self = Shape(k=1, l=2, b=3, u=4, r=5)
s = Shape.self
def nextkind(self):
return {'k': self.k+1}
print(repr(s)) # <Shape(1,2,3,4,5) object at 139766656561792>
s.transform(nextkind)
print(repr(s)) # <Shape(2,2,3,4,5) object at 139766656561888>

Categories

Resources