python signature of method in diamond derived class - python

I am wondering what is the signature in a class derived from 2 classes that have a common but different method.
For example
class Base1():
def __init__(a, b):
self.a = a
self.b = b
class Base2():
def __init__(c):
self.c = c
class Derived(Base1, Base2):
def do_something():
return 3
What is the signature of the init method is the Derived class?
What is its implementation?

There won't be a new signature. Instead, the first method in the method resolution order will be used. In your case that's Base1.__init__.

Related

Python Multiple Inheritance super().__init__()

I have two classes, with the same parameter initialized by their __init__ method.
I would like to inherit both classes in class "X". But I will get: TypeError: B.__init__() missing 1 required positional argument: 'my_param'
Reproducible Example:
class A:
def __init__(self, my_param):
super().__init__()
self.my_param = my_param
class B:
def __init__(self, my_param):
super().__init__()
self.my_param = my_param * 2
class X(A, B):
def __init__(self, my_param):
super().__init__(my_param=my_param)
a = X(my_param=1)
print(a.my_param)
A and B are Mixins, they provide additional functionality for Child Classes. They can be used separetly or together. Lets's say class A provides searhc functionality for search by ID, where class B provides search by value.
Is there a way to set my_param for each of A and B or to set it without getting the error?
This can't be done just using super() calls, because the superclass of the last class in the chain will be object, which doesn't take a my_param parameter.
See python multiple inheritance passing arguments to constructors using super for more discussion of parameter passing to __init__() methods with multiple inheritance.
So you need to change X to call the superclass init methods explicitly, rather than using super(). And A and B shouldn't call super().__init__() because they're subclasses of object, which doesn't do anything in its __init__().
class A:
def __init__(self, my_param):
self.my_param = my_param
class B:
def __init__(self, my_param):
self.my_param = my_param * 2
class X(A, B):
def __init__(self, my_param):
A.__init__(self, my_param=my_param)
B.__init__(self, my_param=my_param)
Since A and B share the same fields, I think it makes sense to make one inherit from the other - in this case, B inherit from A. That way, you'll only need to subclass from B in class X.
For example:
class A:
def __init__(self, my_param):
self.my_param = my_param
class B(A):
def __init__(self, my_param):
super().__init__(my_param * 2)
# or:
# A.__init__(self, my_param * 2)
class X(B):
def __init__(self, my_param):
super().__init__(my_param=my_param)
a = X(my_param=1)
print(a.my_param) # 2

What is the correct docstring documentation for self variable passed to another class

If I have two classes A and B where the object of the first class passes its self to the second class like below. What do I say is the type of that self variable when I perform Numpy/SciPy style docstring documentation? Is object the correct way to put it?
class A:
def __init__(self):
# Some data
def create_B(self):
new_B = B(self)
class B:
"""
This is the class for B
...
Attributes
----------
A : object
Refers to the object of class A that created B
"""
def __init__(self, A):
self.A = A

Python base class' implicit super() call

Currently I am starting to revise my python's OOP knowledge. I stumbled upon super() definition, which suggests, that it provides a derived class with a set of instance variables and methods from a base class.
So I have this piece of code:
class foo:
bar = 5
def __init__(self, a):
self.x = a
def spam(self):
print(self.x)
class baz(foo):
pass
b = baz(5)
b.spam()
And this executed with no super() calls, no errors, and printed out 5.
Now when I add an __init__ method to the derived class, like this:
class foo:
bar = 5
def __init__(self, a):
self.x = a
def spam(self):
print(self.x)
class baz(foo):
def __init__(self, a):
self.b = a
b = baz(5)
b.spam()
the script gives me an error: AttributeError: 'baz' object has no attribute 'x'.
So this would suggest, that if my class has a default __init__, it also has an explicit super() call. I couldn't actually find any info confirming this, so I just wanted to ask if I am correct.
The problem is that when you define the method __init__ in your subclass baz, you are no longer using the one in the parent class foo. Then, when you call b.spam(), x does not exist because that is define in the __init__ method of the parent class.
You can use the following to fix this if what you want is to call the __init__ method of the parent class and also add your own logic:
class baz(foo):
def __init__(self, a):
super().__init__(10) # you can pass any value you want to assign to x
self.b = a
>>> b = baz(5)
>>> b.spam()
10

How to dynamically inherit at initialization time?

I have the following class structure:
class Base:
def z(self):
raise NotImplementedError()
class A(Base):
def z(self):
self._x()
return self._z()
def _x(self):
# do stuff
def _a(self):
raise NotImplementedError()
class B(Base)
def z(self):
self._x()
return self._z()
def _x(self):
# do stuff
def _z(self):
raise NotImplementedError()
class C(A):
def _z(self):
print(5)
class D(B):
def _z(self):
print(5)
The implementation of C(A) and D(B) is exactly the same and does not really care which class it inherits from. The conceptual difference is only in A and B (and these need to be kept as separate classes). Instead of writing separate definitions for C and D, I want to be able to dynamically inherit from A or B based on an argument provided at time of creating an instance of C/D (eventually C and D must be the same name).
It seems that metaclasses might work, but I am not sure how to pass an __init__ argument to the metaclass __new__ (and whether this will actually work). I would really prefer a solution which resolves the problem inside the class.
Have you considered using composition instead of inheritance? It seems like it is much more suitable for this use case. See the bottom of the answer for details.
Anyway,
class C(A): ......... class C(B): ..... is not even valid, and will result with only class C(B) getting defined.
I'm not sure a metaclass will be able to help you here. I believe the best way would be to use type but I'd love to be corrected.
A solution using type (and probably misusing locals() but that's not the point here)
class A:
def __init__(self):
print('Inherited from A')
class B:
def __init__(self):
print('Inherited from B')
class_to_inherit = input() # 'A' or 'B"
C = type('C', (locals()[class_to_inherit],), {})
C()
'A' or 'B'
>> A
Inherited from A
'A' or 'B'
>> B
Inherited from B
Composition
Tracking back to the question in the beginning of my answer, you state yourself that the implementation of both "C(A)" and "C(B)" is identical and they don't actually care about A or B. It seems more correct to me to use composition. Then you can do something along the lines of:
class A: pass
class B: pass
class C:
def __init__(self, obj): # obj is either A or B instance, or A or B themselves
self.obj = obj # or self.obj = obj() if obj is A or B themselves
c = C(A()) # or c = C(A)
In case C should expose the same API as A or B, C can overwrite __getattr__:
class A:
def foo(self):
print('foo')
class C:
def __init__(self, obj):
self.obj = obj
def __getattr__(self, item):
return getattr(self.obj, item)
C(A()).foo()
# foo

Making a class method recognize which class context it's running in

I need to refactor existing code by collapsing a method that's copy-and-pasted between various classed that inherit from one another into a single method.
So I produced the following code:
class A(object):
def rec(self):
return 1
class B(A):
def rec(self):
return self.rec_gen(B)
def rec_gen(self, rec_class):
return super(rec_class, self).rec() + 1
class C(B):
def rec(self):
return self.rec_gen(C)
if __name__=='__main__':
b = B(); c = C()
print c.rec()
print b.rec()
And the output:
3
2
What still bothers me is that in the 'rec' method I need to tell 'rec_gen' the context of the class in which it's running. Is there a way for 'rec_gen' to figure it out by itself in runtime?
This capability has been added to Python 3 - see PEP 3135. In a nutshell:
class B(A):
def rec(self):
return super().rec() + 1
I think you've created the convoluted rec()/rec_gen() setup because you couldn't automatically find the class, but in case you want that anyway the following should work:
class A(object):
def rec(self):
return 1
class B(A):
def rec(self):
# __class__ is a cell that is only created if super() is in the method
super()
return self.rec_gen(__class__)
def rec_gen(self, rec_class):
return super(rec_class, self).rec() + 1
class C(B):
def rec(self):
# __class__ is a cell that is only created if super() is in the method
super()
return self.rec_gen(__class__)
The simplest solution in Python 2 is to use a private member to hold the super object:
class B(A):
def __init__(self):
self.__super = super(B)
def rec(self):
return self.__super.rec() + 1
But that still suffers from the need to specify the actual class in one place, and if you happen to have two identically-named classes in the class hierarchy (e.g. from different modules) this method will break.
There were a couple of us who made recipes for automatic resolution for Python 2 prior to the existence of PEP 3135 - my method is at self.super on ActiveState. Basically, it allows the following:
class B(A, autosuper):
def rec(self):
return self.super().rec() + 1
or in the case that you're calling a parent method with the same name (the most common case):
class B(A, autosuper):
def rec(self):
return self.super() + 1
Caveats to this method:
It's quite slow. I have a version sitting around somewhere that does bytecode manipulation to improve the speed a lot.
It's not consistent with PEP 3135 (although it was a proposal for the Python 3 super at one stage).
It's quite complex.
It's a mix-in base class.
I don't know if the above would enable you to meet your requirements. With a small change to the recipe though you could find out what class you're in and pass that to rec_gen() - basically extract the class-finding code out of _getSuper() into its own method.
An alternative solution for python 2.x would be to use a metaclass to automatically define the rec method in all your subclasses:
class RecGen(type):
def __new__(cls, name, bases, dct):
new_cls = super(RecGen, cls).__new__(cls, name, bases, dct)
if bases != (object,):
def rec(self):
return super(new_cls, self).rec() + 1
new_cls.rec = rec
return new_cls
class A(object):
__metaclass__ = RecGen
def rec(self):
return 1
class B(A):
pass
class C(B):
pass
Note that if you're just trying to get something like the number of parent classes, it would be easier to use self.__class__.__mro__ directly:
class A(object):
def rec(self):
return len(self.__class__.__mro__)-1
class B(A):
pass
class C(B):
pass
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to achieve, but if it is just to have a method that returns a different constant value for each class then use class attributes to store the value. It isn't clear at all from your example that you need to go anywhere near super().
class A(object):
REC = 1
def rec(self):
return self.REC
class B(A):
REC = 2
class C(B):
REC = 3
if __name__=='__main__':
b = B(); c = C()
print c.rec()
print b.rec()

Categories

Resources