Suppose I need to implement an abstract Python interface which then will have many derived classes (each named equally but written in different modules), and in base class I heed to have a common method which will use a particular imported derived class' static method.
So my toy modules look like this:
abstract_class.py
from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod
from derived_class import Derived
class Abstract:
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
#abstractmethod
def foo(self):
pass
def bar(self):
Derived.foo()
derived_class.py
from abstract_class import Abstract
class Derived(Abstract):
#staticmethod
def foo():
print 'Good news everyone!'
if __name__ == '__main__':
derived_object = Derived()
derived_object.bar()
Then of course when I'm trying to run derived_class.py, I get the Abstract name import error.
How do I properly organize this?
On the other hand, if you absolutely needed to do this without an object instance, it's possible to do with classmethods rather than staticmethods.
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
class MyAbstractClass(ABC):
#staticmethod
#abstractmethod
def foo(label: str):
raise NotImplementedError()
#classmethod
def foo_agnostic(cls, label: str):
"""
NOTE: Here, this method doesn't have a reference to an instance of the class.
Instead, it only has a reference to the class itself; but that is enough
to call the abstract static foo() method.
"""
cls.foo(label)
class MyDerivedClass(MyAbstractClass):
#staticmethod
def foo(label: str):
print(label)
if __name__ == "__main__":
instance = MyDerivedClass()
instance.foo("Test 1") # Outputs "Test 1"
instance.foo_agnostic("Test 2") # Outputs "Test 2"
MyDerivedClass.foo_agnostic("Test 3") # Outputs "Test 3"
... in base class I heed to have a common method which will use a
particular imported derived class' static method
If I understand your question correctly, I'd say that this functionality is available out of the box with one small exception: Don't use a static method; just use a regular instance method.
Defining an abstract method in the base class will ensure that derived classes contain an implementation for that method. And, out of the box, the method defined in the derived class will get called when you call derived_object.bar().
Related
The background
In python, if you were defining an Abstract Base Class which requires that its methods be overwritten, you'd do:
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
class MyAbstractClass(ABC):
#abstractmethod
def my_method(self):
pass
The following code would then fail because it doesn't implement my_method.
class MyConcreteClass(MyAbstractClass):
pass
But what if I want to define the method requirements of a mixin class?
class MyMixin:
def my_mixin_method(self):
self.a_required_method()
The following code is then valid:
class MyBase:
def a_required_method(self):
pass
class MyFull(MyMixin, MyBase):
pass
The following code is also valid...
class MyDubious(MyMixin):
pass
But exposes an error at runtime:
MyFull().my_mixin_method() # Works
MyDubious().my_mixin_method() # Runtime error
The Question
Is there something like AbstractBaseClass which can be added to Mixin classes, to ensure that a derived class can't be instantiated unless it inherits correctly?
I'm thinking a nice API would look like:
from asc import ASC, requiredmethod
class MyRobustMixin(ASC):
#requiredmethod
def a_required_method(self):
pass
def my_mixin_method(self):
self.a_required_method()
I want to create a class that has some nested class that defines some contract in Python. A tenable example is a typed config object. My attempt at this is below:
from typing import Mapping
from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod
class BaseClass(metaclass=ABCMeta):
# If you want to implement BaseClass, you must also implement BaseConfig
class BaseConfig(metaclass=ABCMeta):
#abstractmethod
def to_dict(self) -> Mapping:
"""Converts the config to a dictionary"""
But unfortunately I can instantiate a subclass of BaseClass without implementing BaseConfig:
class Foo(BaseClass):
pass
if __name__ == "__main__":
foo = Foo()
Is there some way to enforce that a subclass must implement an inner class, too?
It doesn't seem like this is currently possible. The closest thing is to create two abstract classes (corresponding to outer and inner classes) and to force the implementer to provide the cls constructor for the concrete inner class; e.g.:
from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod
class Inner(metaclass=ABCMeta):
#abstractmethod
def __str__(self):
pass
class Outer(metaclass=ABCMeta):
inner_cls = Inner
def shout(self, *args, **kwargs):
inner = self.inner_cls(*args, **kwargs)
print(f"My inner is {inner}!!!")
class FooInner(Inner):
def __str__(self):
return "FooInner"
class FooOuter(Outer):
inner_cls = FooInner
This requires Inner to have at least one abstractmethod otherwise it can be instantiated as a default inner_cls implementation.
The gist of the question: if inheriting multiple classes how can I guarantee that if one class is inherited, a compliment Abstract Base Class (abc) is also used by the child object.
I've been messing around with pythons inheritance trying to see what kind of cool stuff I can do and I came up with this pattern, which is kind of interesting.
I've been trying to use this make implementing and testing objects that interface with my cache easier. I've got three modules:
ICachable.py
Cacheable.py
SomeClass.py
ICacheable.py
import abc
class ICacheable(abc.ABC):
#property
#abc.abstractmethod
def CacheItemIns(self):
return self.__CacheItemIns
#CacheItemIns.setter
#abc.abstractmethod
def CacheItemIns(self, value):
self.__CacheItemIns = value
return
#abc.abstractmethod
def Load(self):
"""docstring"""
return
#abc.abstractmethod
def _deserializeCacheItem(self):
"""docstring"""
return
#abc.abstractmethod
def _deserializeNonCacheItem(self):
"""docstring"""
return
Cacheable.py
class Cacheable:
def _getFromCache(self, itemName, cacheType,
cachePath=None):
"""docstring"""
kwargs = {"itemName" : itemName,
"cacheType" : cacheType,
"cachePath" : cachePath}
lstSearchResult = CacheManager.SearchCache(**kwargs)
if lstSearchResult[0]:
self.CacheItemIns = lstSearchResult[1]
self._deserializeCacheItem()
else:
cacheItem = CacheManager.NewItem(**kwargs)
self.CacheItemIns = cacheItem
self._deserializeNonCacheItem()
return
SomeClass.py
import ICacheable
import Cacheable
class SomeClass(Cacheable, ICacheable):
__valueFromCache1:str = ""
__valueFromCache2:str = ""
__CacheItemIns:dict = {}
#property
def CacheItemIns(self):
return self.__CacheItemIns
#CacheItemIns.setter
def CacheItemIns(self, value):
self.__CacheItemIns = value
return
def __init__(self, itemName, cacheType):
#Call Method from Cacheable
self.__valueFromCache1
self.__valueFromCache2
self.__getItemFromCache(itemName, cacheType)
return
def _deserializeCacheItem(self):
"""docstring"""
self.__valueFromCache1 = self.CacheItemIns["val1"]
self.__valueFromCache2 = self.CacheItemIns["val2"]
return
def _deserializeNonCacheItem(self):
"""docstring"""
self.__valueFromCache1 = #some external function
self.__valueFromCache2 = #some external function
return
So this example works, but the scary thing is that there is no gurantee that a class inherriting Cacheable also inherits ICacheable. Which seems like a design flaw, as Cacheable is useless on its own. However the ability to abstract things from my subclass/child class with this is powerful. Is there a way to guarantee Cacheable's dependency on ICacheable?
If you explicitly do not want inheritance, you can register classes as virtual subclasses of an ABC.
#ICacheable.register
class Cacheable:
...
That means every subclass of Cacheable is automatically treated as subclass of ICacheable as well. This is mostly useful if you have an efficient implementation that would be slowed down by having non-functional Abstract Base Classes to traverse, e.g. for super calls.
However, ABCs are not just Interfaces and it is fine to inherit from them. In fact, part of the benefit of ABC is that it enforces subclasses to implement all abstract methods. An intermediate helper class, such as Cacheable, is fine not to implement all methods when it is never instantiated. However, any non-virtual subclass that is instantiated must be concrete.
>>> class FailClass(Cacheable, ICacheable):
... ...
...
>>> FailClass()
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class FailClass with abstract methods CacheItemIns, Load, _deserializeCacheItem, _deserializeNonCacheItem
Note that if you
always subclass as class AnyClass(Cacheable, ICacheable):
never instantiate Cacheable
that is functionally equivalent to Cacheable inheriting from ICacheable. The Method Resolution Order (i.e. the inheritance diamond) is the same.
>>> AnyClass.__mro__
(__main__. AnyClass, __main__.Cacheable, __main__.ICacheable, abc.ABC, object)
I have an Interface class which defines the requirements to an active "in-use" class:
class Portfolio(ABC):
#abstractmethod
def update_portfolio(self):
raise NotImplementedError
#abstractmethod
def update_from_fill(self):
raise NotImplementedError
#abstractmethod
def check_signal(self, signal_event):
raise NotImplementedError
The methods update_portfolio and update_from_fill are both methods which will be the same in 99% of the required cases. Only the check_signal method will vary. Therefore, to avoid having to write the same code again and again, I have defined a base class with default methods for update_portfolio and update_from_fill:
class BaseBacktestPortfolio(Portfolio):
def __init__(self, ...):
...
def update_portfolio(self, ...):
...
def update_from_fill(self, ...):
...
Then, finally, I have a class inheriting from the BacktestPortfolio class which specifies the correct implementation of the check_signal method:
class USBacktestPortfolio(BaseBacktestPortfolio):
def check_signal(self, ...):
...
Now, the problem is that my editor complains about the BacktestPortfolio classing not having all the required abstract methods. I could ignore this, of course, but the perfect scenario would be if I could make sure that it is not possible to instantiate an object form the BacktestPortfolio class.
Is this possible? And/or is there a more correct way to implement a structure like this?
I could ignore this, of course, but the perfect scenario would be if I could make sure that it is not possible to instantiate an object from the BacktestPortfolio class.
That is the case in your example already:
>>> BaseBacktestPortfolio.mro()
[__main__.BaseBacktestPortfolio, __main__.Portfolio, abc.ABC, object]
>>> BaseBacktestPortfolio()
TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class BaseBacktestPortfolio with abstract methods check_signal
Since ABC and ABCMeta are just regular types, their features are inherited. This includes their guards against instantiating incomplete classes. Your BaseBacktestPortfolio already is an abstract class.
The warning from your IDE/linter/... exists specifically to warn you that instantiating BaseBacktestPortfolio is not possible.
You can make the BaseBacktestPortfolio also as Abstract class.
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod
class Portfolio(ABC):
#abstractmethod
def update_portfolio(self):
pass
#abstractmethod
def update_from_fill(self):
pass
#abstractmethod
def check_signal(self, signal_event):
pass
class BaseBacktestPortfolio(Portfolio, ABC):
def update_portfolio(self):
print("updated portfolio")
def update_from_fill(self):
print("update from fill")
#abstractmethod
def check_signal(self):
pass
class USBacktestPortfolio(BaseBacktestPortfolio):
def check_signal(self):
print("checked signal")
Also notice that you don't need raise NotImplementedError inside abstract method. You can just pass. Its more Pythonic :)
When I define a class, I like to include type checking (using assert) of the input variables. I am now defining a 'specialized' class Rule which inherits from an abstract base class (ABC) BaseRule, similar to the following:
import abc
class BaseRule(object):
__metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta
#abc.abstractproperty
def resources(self):
pass
class Rule(BaseRule):
def __init__(self, resources):
assert all(isinstance(resource, Resource) for resource in resources) # type checking
self._resources = resources
#property
def resources(self):
return self._resources
class Resource(object):
def __init__(self, domain):
self.domain = domain
if __name__ == "__main__":
resources = [Resource("facebook.com")]
rule = Rule(resources)
The assert statement in the __init__ function of the Rule class ensures that the resources input is a list (or other iterable) of Resource objects. However, this would also be the case for other classes which inherit from BaseRule, so I would like to incorporate this assertion in the abstractproperty somehow. How might I go about this?
See this documentation on abc Type annotations with mypy-lang https://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/class_basics.html#abstract-base-classes-and-multiple-inheritance
Make your base class have a non-abstract property that calls separate abstract getter and setter methods. The property can do the validation you want before calling the setter. Other code (such as the __init__ method of a derived class) that wants to trigger the validation can do so by doing its assignment via the property:
class BaseRule(object):
__metaclass__ = abc.ABCMeta
#property
def resources(self): # this property isn't abstract and shouldn't be overridden
return self._get_resources()
#resources.setter
def resources(self, value):
assert all(isinstance(resource, Resources) for resource in value)
self._set_resources(value)
#abstractmethod
def _get_resources(self): # these methods should be, instead
pass
#abstractmethod
def _set_resources(self, value):
pass
class Rule(BaseRule):
def __init__(self, resources):
self.resources = resources # assign via the property to get type-checking!
def _get_resources(self):
return self._resources
def _set_resources(self, value):
self._resources = value
You might even consider moving the __init__ method from Rule into the BaseRule class, since it doesn't need any knowledge about Rule's concrete implementation.