For my project I need to dynamically create custom (Class) methods.
I found out it is not so easy in Python:
class UserFilter(django_filters.FilterSet):
'''
This filter is used in the API
'''
# legacy below, this has to be added dynamically
#is_field_type1 = MethodFilter(action='filter_field_type1')
#def filter_field_type1(self, queryset, value):
# return queryset.filter(related_field__field_type1=value)
class Meta:
model = get_user_model()
fields = []
But it is giving me errors (and headaches...). Is this even possible?
I try to make the code between #legacy dynamic
One option to do this I found was to create the class dynamically
def create_filter_dict():
new_dict = {}
for field in list_of_fields:
def func(queryset, value):
_filter = {'stableuser__'+field:value}
return queryset.filter(**_filter)
new_dict.update({'filter_'+field: func})
new_dict.update({'is_'+field: MethodFilter(action='filter_'+field)})
return new_dict
meta_model_dict = {'model': get_user_model(), 'fields':[]}
meta_type = type('Meta',(), meta_model_dict)
filter_dict = create_filter_dict()
filter_dict['Meta'] = meta_type
UserFilter = type('UserFilter', (django_filters.FilterSet,), filter_dict)
However, this is giving me
TypeError at /api/v2/users/
func() takes 2 positional arguments but 3 were given
Does anyone know how to solve this dilemma?
Exception Value: 'UserFilter' object has no attribute 'is_bound'
You are getting this error because the class methods you are generating, are not bound to any class. To bound them to the class, you need to use setattr()
Try this on a console:
class MyClass(object):
pass
#classmethod
def unbound(cls):
print "Now I'm bound to ", cls
print unbound
setattr(MyClass, "bound", unbound)
print MyClass.bound
print MyClass.bound()
Traceback:
UserFilter = type('Foo', (django_filters.FilterSet, ), create_filter_dict().update({'Meta':type('Meta',(), {'model':
get_user_model(), 'fields':[]} )})) TypeError: type() argument 3 must
be dict, not None
Now, this is failing because dict.update() doesn't return the same instance, returns None. That can be fixed easily
class_dict = create_filter_dict()
class_dict.update({'Meta':type('Meta',(), {'model': get_user_model(), 'fields':[]})}
UserFilter = type('Foo', (django_filters.FilterSet, ), class_dict))
However, just look how messy that code looks. I recommend to you to try to be
clearer with the code you write even if it requires to write a few extra lines. In the long run, the code will be easier to maintain for you and your team.
meta_model_dict = {'model': get_user_model(), 'fields':[]}
meta_type = type('Meta',(), meta_model_dict)
filter_dict = create_filter_dict()
filter_dict['Meta'] = meta_type
UserFilter = type('Foo', (django_filters.FilterSet,), filter_dict)
This code might not be perfect but it is more readable than the original line of code you posted:
UserFilter = type('Foo', (django_filters.FilterSet, ), create_filter_dict().update({'Meta':type('Meta',(), {'model': get_user_model(), 'fields':[]})}))
And removes a complication on an already kinda difficult concept to grasp.
You might want to learn about metaclasses. Maybe you can overwrite the new method of a class. I can recommend you 1 or 2 posts about that.
Another option is that maybe you are not adding the filters correctly or in a way django doesn't expect? That would explain why you get no errors but none of your functions gets called.
You can use classmethod. Here is example how you can use it:
class UserFilter:
#classmethod
def filter_field(cls, queryset, value, field = None):
# do somthing
return "{0} ==> {1} {2}".format(field, queryset, value)
#classmethod
def init(cls,list_of_fields ):
for field in list_of_fields:
ff = lambda cls, queryset, value, field=field: cls.filter_field(queryset, value, field )
setattr(cls, 'filter_'+field, classmethod( ff ))
UserFilter.init( ['a','b'] )
print(UserFilter.filter_a(1,2)) # a ==> 1 2
print(UserFilter.filter_b(3,4)) # b ==> 3 4
You are asking for:
custom (Class) methods.
So we take an existing class and derive a subclass where you can add new methods or overwrite the methods of the original existing class (look into the code of the original class for the methods you need) like this:
from universe import World
class NewEarth(World.Earth):
def newDirectionUpsideDown(self,direction):
self.rotationDirection = direction
All the other Methods and features of World.Earth apply to NewEarth only you can now change the direction to make the world turn your new way.
To overwrite an existing method of a class is as as easy as this.
class NewEarth(World.Earth):
def leIitRain(self,amount): # let's assume leIitRain() is a standard-function of our world
return self.asteroidStorm(amount) #let's assume this is possible Method of World.Earth
So if someone likes a cool shower on earth he/she/it or whatever makes room for new development on the toy marble the burning way.
So have fun in your way learning python - and don't start with complicated things.
If I got you completely wrong - you might explain your problem in more detail - so more wise people than me can share their wisdom.
Related
I have two classes, one inherits of the other. When I hesitate and re-establish the function get_commande_date I receive the following error:
TypeError: BooksCommande.get_commandes_date() missing 1 required positional argument: 'key'
This is my code:
class BaseCommande(ABC):
def __init__(self, list_of_commande: list) -> NoReturn:
if list_of_commande:
self.list_of_commande = list_of_commande
self.commande_date = None
self.comande_payed = None
self.commande_price = None
self.total_commandes = None
self.process_commande(list_of_commande)
super().__init__()
def get_commandes_date(self, list_of_commande):
return [commande['date_start'] for commande in list_of_commande]
def process_commande(self, list_of_commande):
self.commande_date = self.get_commandes_date(list_of_commande)
def my_dict(self):
return{
"commende_date": self.commande_date}
class BooksCommande(BaseCommande):
def __init__(self, list_of_commande: list) -> NoReturn:
super().__init__(list_of_commande)
self.commande_syplies = None
self.commande_books = None
self.process_books(list_of_commande)
def get_commandes_date(self, list_of_commande, key):
commande_date = []
for commande in list_of_commande:
cmd = {
'date_start': commande['date_start'],
'key': key,
'date_end': commande['date_end'],
}
commande_date.append(cmd)
return commande_date
def get_commande_books(self, books: list):
return 10
def process_books(self, list_of_commande):
self.books_list = self.get_commande_books(list_of_commande)
def my_dict2(self):
return{**super().my_dict(),
"books": self.books_list
}
commande_list = [{"date_start": "10/10/2021", "date_end": "12/15/2019"}]
print(BooksCommande(commande_list).my_dict2())
Is there a way to force BaseCommande to use the new redefined function or not? I really don't know how or from where to start.
The problem is you're attempting to change the number of arguments that get passed to the get_commandes_date() method — something that cannot be done when defining a derived class.
The workaround is to make the argument optional. So in class BaseCommande declare a key parameter:
def get_commandes_date(self, list_of_commande, key):
return [commande['date_start'] for commande in list_of_commande]
And then give it a default value in the derived BooksCommande class version of the method. (I'm not sure what might make sense here, so just made it None.)
def get_commandes_date(self, list_of_commande, key=None):
commande_date = []
for commande in list_of_commande:
cmd = {
'date_start': commande['date_start'],
'key': key,
'date_end': commande['date_end'],
}
commande_date.append(cmd)
return commande_date
As others have explained, the issue with your code is that your subclass, BooksCommande, changes the signature of the get_commandes_date method to be different than the version in the base class, BaseCommande. While that might be a bad idea in an abstract sense, it's not forbidden by Python. The real trouble is that one of BaseCommande's other methods, process_commande, tries to use the old signature, so everything breaks when that it gets called.
There is a fairly direct way to fix this, if you want to do so without dramatically changing the code. The general idea is for the two BaseCommande methods to call each other through a private reference. Even if one is overridden in a subclass, the private reference will remain pointing to the original implementation. Name mangling, with two leading underscores is often useful for this:
class BaseCommande(ABC):
...
def get_commandes_date(self, list_of_commande): # this method will be overridden
return [commande['date_start'] for commande in list_of_commande]
__get_commandes_date = get_commandes_date # private reference to previous method
def process_commande(self, list_of_commande):
self.commande_date = self.__get_commandes_date(list_of_commande) # use it here
This kind of design won't always be correct, so you'll need to figure out if it's appropriate for your specific classes or not. If the fact that process_commande is calls get_commandes_date is supposed to be an implementation detail (and so it should keep behaving the same way, even though the latter method is overridden), then this is a good approach. If the relationship between the methods is part of the class's API, then you probably don't want to do this (since overriding the get_commandes_date method may be a deliberate way to change the results of processess_commande in a subclass).
I think you want the method my_dict to have both my_dict and my_dict2 and have a boolean to trigger whenever you want to use one or the other.
def my_dict(self, trigger=False):
if not Trigger:
return{
"commende_date": self.commande_date}
else:
return{**super().my_dict(),
"books": self.books_list
Put this in place of your old my_dict method
def my_dict(self):
return{
"commende_date": self.commande_date}
Edit to add code
I'm new to OOP python and trying to understand how to handle instances, I have a method:
class Object:
things = []
def __init__(self, table):
self.table = table
self.things.append(table)
( ... )
def thingy(self):
return self.db.execute(f"select date, p1, p2 from {self.table}")
def all_things(self):
self.things.extend(
map(lambda t: Object(thing=t + '_thing').thingy(), Constants.THINGS))
return self.things
Now how would I call this object, because my thing is driven by a list from Constants.THINGS, I.E: THINGS = ["table1", "table2" ... ], but in order to create the object to call the method all_things() - I must have a thing set - even tho the method sets the thing on call ...
This feels a little backward, so would appreciate what it is I am misunderstanding as I think I need to change the constructor/object
a = Object(end_date="2020-01-05",
start_date="2020-01-01",
thing=WHAT_TO_PUT_HERE).all_things()
If I add anything to this thing I get a double output
Any help is appreciated
UPDATE:
The desired output would be that thing() will fire, based on a list input provided by Constants.THINGS, if we input: THINGS = ["table1", "table2"] we would expect thingy() to execute twice with:
select date, p1, p2 from table1,
select date, p1, p2 from table2
And this would be added to the things class variable, and then when all_things() finishes we should have the content of the two select statements in a list
However,
Object.things
will actually have [WHAT_TO_PUT_HERE, table_1, table2]
So according to your update, this is what I think you're attempting to do.
class Object:
def __init__(self):
# do some initialization
pass
def thingy(self, table):
return self.db.execute(f"select date, p1, p2 from {table}")
# call the method "thingy" on all Constants.THINGS
def all_things(self):
map(self.thingy, Constants.THINGS)
Then from outside the class you would call it like this.
my_instance = Object()
my_instance.all_things()
I'm assuming the class will also have some setup and teardown of your db connection. As well as some other things but this is simply a minimalistic attempt at giving an example of how it should work.
Okay, so rather than having a class variable which #Axe319 informed me doesn't get reset with every instance as self.table would. I altered the constructor to just have:
class Object:
def __init__(self, table):
self.table = table
self.things = list()
Then when I call the particular method outside the class:
all_things() I can just pass None into the table as the method builds that for me. i.e:
a = Object(thing=None).all_things()
This might be an anti-pattern - again I'm new to OOP, but it's creating something that looks correct.
P.S yes I agree, things, thingy, and the thing was a bad choice for variables for this question...
Thanks
Consider the following code example:
from enum import Enum
class Location(Enum):
Outside = 'outside'
Inside = 'inside'
class Inside(Enum): # TypeError for conflicting names
Downstairs = 'downstairs'
Upstairs = 'upstairs'
How do I make Inside have the value 'inside' whilst also being a nested enum for accessing Downstairs and Upstairs?
Desired input:
print(Location.Inside)
print(Location.Inside.value)
print(Location.Inside.Downstairs)
print(Location.Inside.Downstairs.value)
Desired output:
Location.Inside
inside
Location.Inside.Downstairs
downstairs
UPDATE 1:
Some more context to my specific problem:
class Location(Enum):
Outside = 'outside'
Inside = 'inside'
class Inside(Enum): # TypeError for conflicting names
Downstairs = 'downstairs'
Upstairs = 'upstairs'
class Human:
def __init__(self, location):
self.location = location
def getLocationFromAPI():
# this function returns either 'inside' or 'outside'
# make calls to external API
return location # return location from api in str
def whereInside(human):
if human.location != Location.Inside:
return None
# here goes logic that determines if human is downstairs or upstairs
return locationInside # return either Location.Downstairs or Location.Upstairs
location_str = getLocationFromAPI() # will return 'inside' or 'outside'
location = Location(location_str) # make Enum
human = Human(location) # create human with basic location
if human.location == Location.Inside:
where_inside = whereInside(human)
human.location = where_inside # update location to be more precise
The problem is when I create the Human object I only know of a basic location, as in 'inside' or 'outside'. Only after that can I update the location to be more precise.
You can accomplish this by embedding an enum.Enum inside another like so: (just watch out for names conflicting)
from enum import Enum
class _Inside(Enum):
Downstairs = 'downstairs'
Upstairs = 'upstairs'
class Location(Enum):
Outside = 'outside'
Inside = _Inside
print(Location.Inside.value.Downstairs.value)
downstairs
it may be a bit late and the one who asked the question is no longer necessary, but I leave it here in case someone wants to take a look at it, and even if it has already been validated as one, although the same comment that it is not completely complete .
But I have been thinking about it and in the end I have solved it by looking at the same documentation XD.
You cannot extend classes of Enums, but you can extend methods, I have followed this way and the only thing I have done has been to override the new and init methods, the use case can be modified, this is only to nest enumerators.
from enum import Enum
class SuperNestedEnum(Enum):
def __new__(cls, *args):
obj = object.__new__(cls)
value = None
# Normal Enumerator definition
if len(args) == 1:
value = args[0]
# Have a tuple of values, first de value and next the nested enum (I will set in __init__ method)
if len(args) == 2:
value = args[0]
if value:
obj._value_ = value
return obj
def __init__(self, name, nested=None):
# At this point you can set any attribute what you want
if nested:
# Check if is an Enumerator you can comment this if. if you want another object
if isinstance(nested, EnumMeta):
for enm in nested:
self.__setattr__(enm.name, enm)
class Homework(Enum):
Task = "5"
class Subjects(SuperNestedEnum):
Maths = "maths"
English = "english"
Physics = "nested", Homework
class School(SuperNestedEnum):
Name = "2"
Subjects = "subjects", Subjects
Ignore the use case because it doesn't make sense, it's just an example
>>> School.Name
<School.Name: '2'>
>>> School.Subjects
<School.Subjects: 'subjects'>
>>> School.Subjects.value
'subjects'
>>> School.Subjects.Maths
<Subjects.Maths: 'maths'>
>>> School.Subjects.Physics.value
'nested'
>>> School.Subjects.Physics.Task
<Homework.Task: '5'>
>>> School.Subjects.Physics.Task.value
'5'
If anyone has similar issues and just wants a simple solution for the topic without patching any functions or additional imports for enums containing strings, follow these steps:
Create the value enums, in your lower hierarchy, like:
class __private_enum1__(str, enum.Enum):
VAL11 = "abc"
VAL12 = "def"
class enum2(str, enum.Enum):
VAL21 = "123"
VAL22 = "456"
Create a base class (a container) for these enums. Where you can either import the enums classes or simply directly acccess the enums.
class myValues:
VAL11 = __private_enum1__.VAL11
VAL12 = __private_enum1__.VAL12
VALS2X = enum2
Then you can access your values by:
print(myValues.VAL11.value)
print(myValues.VAL2X.VAL21.value)
.value is not necessary here but it shows that you both access the string inside the enum for passing it to other functions but also the enum itself, which is pretty neat. So basically, first create the values, then the structure. That way you have a class but it provides you the basic functionality of enums and you can nest them as deep as you want to without further imports.
Hello Stack Overflow!
I am executing a simple command in a program that compiles a report of all the books contained in a library. The library contains a list of shelves, each shelves contains a dictionary of books. However, despite my best efforts, I am always duplicating all my books and placing them on every shelf, instead of the shelf I've instructed the program to place the book on.
I expect I have missed out on some kind of fundamental rule with object creation and organization.
I believe the culprits are the enshelf and unshelf methods in the book class.
Thank you so much for your time,
Jake
Code below:
class book():
shelf_number = None
def __init__(self, title, author):
super(book, self).__init__()
self.title = title
self.author = author
def enshelf(self, shelf_number):
self.shelf_number = shelf_number
SPL.shelves[self.shelf_number].books[hash(self)] = self
def unshelf(self):
del SPL.shelves[self.shelf_number].books[hash(self)]
return self
def get_title(self):
return self.title
def get_author(self):
return self.author
class shelf():
books = {}
def __init__(self):
super(shelf, self).__init__()
def get_books(self):
temp_list = []
for k in self.books.keys():
temp_list.append(self.books[k].get_title())
return temp_list
class library():
shelves = []
def __init__(self, name):
super(library, self).__init__()
self.name = name
def make_shelf(self):
temp = shelf()
self.shelves.append(temp)
def remove_shelf(shelf_number):
del shelves[shelf_number]
def report_all_books(self):
temp_list = []
for x in range(0,len(self.shelves)):
temp_list.append(self.shelves[x].get_books())
print(temp_list)
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#----------------------SEATTLE PUBLIC LIBARARY -----------------------------------------
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPL = library("Seattle Public Library")
for x in range(0,3):
SPL.make_shelf()
b1 = book("matterhorn","karl marlantes")
b2 = book("my life","bill clinton")
b3 = book("decision points","george bush")
b1.enshelf(0)
b2.enshelf(1)
b3.enshelf(2)
print(SPL.report_all_books())
b1.unshelf()
b2.unshelf()
b3.unshelf()
OUTPUT:
[['decision points', 'my life', 'matterhorn'], ['decision points', 'my life', 'matterhorn'], ['decision points', 'my life', 'matterhorn']]
None
[Finished in 0.1s]
..instead of [["decision points"],["my life"],["matterhorn"]]
Use dict.pop() instead of del.
Add self.books = {} to shelf's __init__. Don't declare books outside of the __init__, because if you do so, all of the instances of that class are going to refer to the same thing. Instead, this makes each instance have its own dictionary, which is of course what you want since a book can't be in two shelves at once.
Do the same for library and its shelves and book and its shelf_number.
Pass a library instance as an argument to enshelf and unshelf. When you refer to SPL from within your objects' methods, Python finds that there is no local SPL defined, so it searches for one outside of the local scope; but if you were to try to assign something to SPL or do some other sort of mutative business, you would get an UnboundLocalError.
Bonuses:
class book(object), class shelf(object), and class library(object). (Won't fix your problem, but you should do that anyway.)
You don't need to hash the keys before using them, they will be hashed (if they are hashable, but if you're hashing them, then they are).
There is no need to call super() unless you are inheriting from something, in which case you can delegate a method call to a parent or sibling using it - but you aren't doing that.
get_books() can be implemented as nothing more than return [self.books[k].get_title() for k in self.books.iterkeys()]
Likewise for report_all_books(): return [shlf.get_books() for shlf in self.shelves]. Note that I am not iterating over the indices, but rather over the elements themselves. Try for c in "foobar": print(c) in the interactive shell if you want to see for yourself.
I'm building my first form with django, and I'm seeing some behavior that I really did not expect at all. I defined a form class:
class AssignmentFilterForm(forms.Form):
filters = []
filter = forms.ChoiceField()
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super(forms.Form, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.filters.append(PatientFilter('All'))
self.filters.append(PatientFilter('Assigned', 'service__isnull', False))
self.filters.append(PatientFilter('Unassigned', 'service__isnull', True))
for i, f in enumerate(self.filters):
self.fields["filter"].choices.append((i, f.name))
When I output this form to a template using:
{{ form.as_p }}
I see the correct choices. However, after refreshing the page, I see the list three times in the select box. Hitting refresh again results in the list showing 10 times in the select box!
Here is my view:
#login_required
def assign_test(request):
pg = PhysicianGroup.objects.get(pk=physician_group)
if request.method == 'POST':
form = AssignmentFilterForm(request.POST)
if form.is_valid():
yes = False
else:
form = AssignmentFilterForm()
patients = pg.allPatients().order_by('bed__room__unit', 'bed__room__order', 'bed__order' )
return render_to_response('hospitalists/assign_test.html', RequestContext(request, {'patients': patients, 'form': form,}))
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks, Pete
This is actually a feature of Python that catches a lot of people.
When you define variables on the class as you have with filters = [] the right half of the expression is evaluated when the class is initially defined. So when your code is first run it will create a new list in memory and return a reference to this list. As a result, each AssignmentFilterForm instance will have its own filters variable, but they will all point to this same list in memory. To solve this just move the initialization of self.filters into your __init__ method.
Most of the time you don't run into this issue because the types you are using aren't stored as a reference. Numbers, booleans, etc are stored as their value. Strings are stored by reference, but strings are immutable meaning a new string must be created in memory every time it is changed and a new reference returned.
Pointers don't present themselves often in scripting language, so it's often confusing at first when they do.
Here's a simple IDLE session example to show what's happening
>>> class Test():
myList = []
def __init__( self ):
self.myList.append( "a" )
>>> Test.myList
[]
>>> test1 = Test()
>>> Test.myList
['a']
>>> test1.myList
['a']
>>> test2 = Test()
>>> test2.myList
['a', 'a']
>>> test1.myList
['a', 'a']
>>> Test.myList
['a', 'a']
I picked up the book Pro Django which answers this question. It's a great book by the way, and I highly recommend it!
The solution is to make BOTH the choice field and my helper var both instance variables:
class AssignmentFilterForm(forms.Form):
def __init__(self, pg, request = None):
super(forms.Form, self).__init__(request)
self.filters = []
self.filters.append(PatientFilter('All'))
self.filters.append(PatientFilter('Assigned', 'service__isnull', False))
self.filters.append(PatientFilter('Unassigned', 'service__isnull', True))
self.addPhysicians(pg)
self.fields['filter'] = forms.ChoiceField()
for i, f in enumerate(self.filters):
self.fields['filter'].choices.append((i, f.name))
Clearing out the choices works but would surely result in threading issues.
You're appending to the PER-CLASS variable self.filters. Make it into a PER-INSTANCE variable instead, by doing self.filters = [] at the start of __init__.
To clarify from some of the other answers:
The fields are, and must be, class variables. They get all sorts of things done to them by the metaclass, and this is the correct way to define them.
However, your filters variable does not need to be a class var. It can quite easily be an instance var - just remove the definition from the class and put it in __init__. Or, perhaps even better, don't make it a property at all - just a local var within __init__. Then, instead of appending to filters.choices, just reassign it.
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super(forms.Form, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
filters = []
filters.append(PatientFilter('All'))
filters.append(PatientFilter('Assigned', 'service__isnull', False))
filters.append(PatientFilter('Unassigned', 'service__isnull', True))
self.fields["filter"].choices = [(i, f.name) for i, f in enumerate(filters)]
As answered above, you need to initialize filters as an instance variable:
def __init__(...):
self.filters = []
self.filters.append(...)
# ...
If you want to know more about how the Form class works, you should read this page in the Django wiki:
Model Creation and Initialization
It talks about the internals of the Model class, but you'll find the general setup of fields is somewhat similar to the Form (minus the database stuff). It's a bit dated (2006), but I think the basic principles still apply. The metaclass stuff can be a bit confusing if you're new though.