Develop Reference

How to decorate property in Python

I'm trying to add extra decorator for magic method (__get__) in descriptor class.
I'm able to do it when I use #property but not when I use descriptor class.
I check range because my object set registers on the bus and some registers can take only specific range of values:
import functools
def check_range(min, max):
def decorator(f):
#functools.wraps(f)
def wrap(self, value):
if value not in range(min, max+1):
return
return f(self, value)
return wrap
return decorator
This works:
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
self.device.init_smth('my_object')
#property
def my_object(self):
return self.device.get_value('my_object')
#my_object.setter
#check_range(0,1)
def my_object(self, value):
self.device.set_value('my_object', value)
a = Foo()
print(a.my_object)
a.my_object = 1
print(a.my_object)
a.myobject = -1
And in this example everything works the same but check_range is not invoked:
class Register:
def __init__(self, name, device):
self.name = name
device.init_smth(name)
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
return instance.device.get_value(self.name)
#check_range(0,1)
def __set__(self, instance, value):
instance.device.set_value(self.name, value)
class Foo:
def __init__(self):
self.my_object = Register('my_object', self.device)
a = Foo()
print(a.my_object)
a.my_object = 1
print(a.my_object)
a.myobject = -1

I may be wrong, but most probably your descriptor not invoked at all, decorator is not the problem. Descriptors meant to be used like
class Foo2:
my_object = Register('my_object', 'init_value')
— you're defining it like class attribute. And python will execute all machinery with __get__/__set__/__del__ if your class attribute supports it (i.e. it is descriptor).
This is why there is an "instance" argument in descriptor methods — you're defining descriptor as class variable, but i.e. __set__ method will receive actual instance of your class, so you can manage per-instance data, like your device

Python abstract setters and getters

I want to write abstract class that will force inheriting classes to implement all methods AND properties in my abstract class.
Additionally I want to use of setters and getters for my abstract property to make my code uncluttered and looking nicely
However, current implementation:
import abc
class Component(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
#property
#abc.abstractmethod
def status(self):
pass
#property
#status.setter
#abc.abstractmethod
def status(self, value):
pass
does enforce inheriting class to implement getter for my abstract property getter, but does not enforce creating a property setter (what is exactly what I want)
How can I achieve this behavior without loosing all benefits from application of further mentioned method (aka writing new methods and executing them in my abstract class setter) ?

from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod
class Base(object):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
def __init__(self, val):
self._foo = val
#abstractmethod
def _doStuff(self, signals):
print ('Base does stuff')
#abstractmethod
def _get_foo(self):
return self._foo
#abstractmethod
def _set_foo(self, val):
self._foo = val + 'r'
foo = property(_get_foo, _set_foo)
class floor_1(Base):
__metaclass__ = ABCMeta
def __init__(self, val):
self._foo = val
super(floor_1, self).__init__(val)
def _doStuff(self, signals):
print ('floor_1 does stuff')
def _get_foo(self):
return self._foo
def _set_foo(self, val):
#self._foo = val + 'r'
super()._set_foo(val + 'r')
foo = property(_get_foo, _set_foo)
class floor_2(floor_1):
#property
def foo(self):
return self._foo
#foo.setter
def foo(self, val):
self._foo = val + 'r'
#super()._set_foo(val + 'r')
b1 = floor_1('bar')
# b1 = floor_2('bar')
print(b1.foo)
b1.foo = 'bar'
print(b1.foo)

The problem is that neither the getter nor the setter is a method of your abstract class; they are attributes of the property, which is a (non-callable) class attribute. Consider this equivalent definition:
def status_getter(self):
pass
def status_setter(self, value):
pass
class Component(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
# status = property(...)
# status.__isabstractmethod__ = True
status = abstractmethod(property(status_getter, status_setter))
Inheriting a property is quite different from inheriting a method. You are basically replacing the property, because your class itself does not have a reference to either the getter or the setter. Despite the name, abstractmethod does not actually make the property a method; it really does nothing more than add an attribute to whatever it is applied to and return the original value.
So, to ensure that a subclass provides a read/write property, what are you to do? Skip the decorator syntax, define the getter and setter as explicit abstract methods, then define the property explicitly in terms of those private methods.
class Component(metaclass=abc.ABCMeta):
#abstractmethod
def _get_status(self):
pass
#abstractmethod
def _set_status(self, v):
pass
status = property(lambda self: self._get_status(), lambda self, v: self._set_status(self, v))
Or, you can make use of __init_subclass__ (which postdates abc; its purpose is to allow class initialization that is otherwise only possible via a metaclass).
class Component:
def __init_subclass(cls, **kwargs):
super().__init_subclass__(**kwargs)
try:
p = cls.status
except AttributeError:
raise ValueError("Class does not define 'status' attribute")
if not isinstance(p, property):
raise ValueError("'status' is not a property")
if p.fget is None:
raise ValueError("'status' has no getter")
if p.fset is None:
raise ValueError("'status' has no setter")
This is actually an improvement over abc, in my opinion. If a subclass fails to define a read/write status property, an exception will be raised when the class is defined, not just when you attempt to instantiate the class.

Alternative for inheritance in python

How to save code duplication in the following scenario ?
say Aand B are two classes having a common function(say) name
class A(object):
name = 'foo'
#property
def name(self): # the common function
return self.name
similarly B
class B(object):
name = 'bar'
#property
def name(self):
return self.name
One way would be to make a class from which both of them inherit from, and define name there.
Any good alternatives ?

If you're really determined to avoid inheritance, just define a function outside of either class:
def get_name(object):
return object.name

class A(object):
name = 'foo'
def get_name(self): # the common function
return self.name
class B(A):
pass
In this case B would inherit from A

Is there a reason you can't have B inherit from A?
class B(A):
name = 'bar'

Since you are decorating name with #property, I am assuming you want this to be an instance variable. If you want this to return a more private variable, let's call it _name, you have to do:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self._name = 'foo'
#property
def name(self):
return self._name
You can't have both a variable and a function have the same name, since the latter will simply override the former. If you want a base class that takes care of this, it would look like this:
class HasName(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self._name = name
#property
def name(self):
return self._name
class A(HasName):
def __init__(self):
self._name = 'foo'
class B(HasName):
def __init__(self):
self._name = 'bar'
You can also call the constructor in HasName.

Assuming self.name stands in for a more complex method, the easiest way to cut down on duplicated code is to move the function out to the module and have it take an arbitrary object as a parameter. Then, if you still want to tie the method directly to the class, you can add a short method that dispatches to the module function.
def _name(obj):
return obj.name
class A(object):
# ...
#property
def name(self):
return _name(self)
class B(object):
# ...
#property
def name(self):
return _name(self)
Note that this will not work well if A.name and B.name have completely different behaviors. If the _name function starts checking the type of the object given, reconsider whether you really want to abstract that functionality in the first place.

Python: Getting static properties via a property name

I have a python class with "emulated" static properties via a metaclass:
class MyMeta(type):
#property
def x(self): return 'abc'
#property
def y(self): return 'xyz'
class My: __metaclass__ = MyMeta
Now some of my functions receives the property name as a string, which should be retrieved from My.
def property_value(name):
return My.???how to call property specified in name???
The point here is that I don't want an instance of My to be created.
Many thanks,
Ovanes

You could use
getattr(My,name)

I was looking at this recently. I wanted to be able to write Test.Fu where Fu is a computed property.
The following works using a descriptor object:
class DeclareStaticProperty(object):
def __init__(self, method):
self.method = method
def __get__(self, instance, owner):
return self.method(owner())
class Test(object):
def GetFu(self):
return 42
Fu = DeclareStaticProperty(GetFu)
print Test.Fu # outputs 42
Note that there is an instance of Test allocated behind the scenes.

How to call a property of the base class if this property is being overwritten in the derived class?

I'm changing some classes of mine from an extensive use of getters and setters to a more pythonic use of properties.
But now I'm stuck because some of my previous getters or setters would call the corresponding method of the base class, and then perform something else. But how can this be accomplished with properties? How to call the property getter or setter in the parent class?
Of course just calling the attribute itself gives infinite recursion.
class Foo(object):
#property
def bar(self):
return 5
#bar.setter
def bar(self, a):
print a
class FooBar(Foo):
#property
def bar(self):
# return the same value
# as in the base class
return self.bar # --> recursion!
#bar.setter
def bar(self, c):
# perform the same action
# as in the base class
self.bar = c # --> recursion!
# then do something else
print 'something else'
fb = FooBar()
fb.bar = 7

You might think you could call the base class function which is called by property:
class FooBar(Foo):
#property
def bar(self):
# return the same value
# as in the base class
return Foo.bar(self)
Though this is the most obvious thing to try I think - it does not work because bar is a property, not a callable.
But a property is just an object, with a getter method to find the corresponding attribute:
class FooBar(Foo):
#property
def bar(self):
# return the same value
# as in the base class
return Foo.bar.fget(self)

super() should do the trick:
return super().bar
In Python 2.x you need to use the more verbose syntax:
return super(FooBar, self).bar

There is an alternative using super that does not require to explicitly reference the base class name.
Base class A:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self._prop = None
#property
def prop(self):
return self._prop
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
self._prop = value
class B(A):
# we want to extend prop here
pass
In B, accessing the property getter of the parent class A:
As others have already answered, it's:
super(B, self).prop
Or in Python 3:
super().prop
This returns the value returned by the getter of the property, not the getter itself but it's sufficient to extend the getter.
In B, accessing the property setter of the parent class A:
The best recommendation I've seen so far is the following:
A.prop.fset(self, value)
I believe this one is better:
super(B, self.__class__).prop.fset(self, value)
In this example both options are equivalent but using super has the advantage of being independent from the base classes of B. If B were to inherit from a C class also extending the property, you would not have to update B's code.
Full code of B extending A's property:
class B(A):
#property
def prop(self):
value = super(B, self).prop
# do something with / modify value here
return value
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
# do something with / modify value here
super(B, self.__class__).prop.fset(self, value)
One caveat:
Unless your property doesn't have a setter, you have to define both the setter and the getter in B even if you only change the behaviour of one of them.

try
#property
def bar:
return super(FooBar, self).bar
Although I'm not sure if python supports calling the base class property. A property is actually a callable object which is set up with the function specified and then replaces that name in the class. This could easily mean that there is no super function available.
You could always switch your syntax to use the property() function though:
class Foo(object):
def _getbar(self):
return 5
def _setbar(self, a):
print a
bar = property(_getbar, _setbar)
class FooBar(Foo):
def _getbar(self):
# return the same value
# as in the base class
return super(FooBar, self)._getbar()
def bar(self, c):
super(FooBar, self)._setbar(c)
print "Something else"
bar = property(_getbar, _setbar)
fb = FooBar()
fb.bar = 7

Some small improvements to Maxime's answer:
Using __class__ to avoid writing B. Note that self.__class__ is the runtime type of self, but __class__ without self is the name of the enclosing class definition. super() is a shorthand for super(__class__, self).
Using __set__ instead of fset. The latter is specific to propertys, but the former applies to all property-like objects (descriptors).
class B(A):
#property
def prop(self):
value = super().prop
# do something with / modify value here
return value
#prop.setter
def prop(self, value):
# do something with / modify value here
super(__class__, self.__class__).prop.__set__(self, value)

You can use the following template:
class Parent():
def __init__(self, value):
self.__prop1 = value
#getter
#property
def prop1(self):
return self.__prop1
#setter
#prop1.setter
def prop1(self, value):
self.__prop1 = value
#deleter
#prop1.deleter
def prop1(self):
del self.__prop1
class Child(Parent):
#getter
#property
def prop1(self):
return super(Child, Child).prop1.__get__(self)
#setter
#prop1.setter
def prop1(self, value):
super(Child, Child).prop1.__set__(self, value)
#deleter
#prop1.deleter
def prop1(self):
super(Child, Child).prop1.__delete__(self)
Note! All of the property methods must be redefined together. If do not want to redefine all methods, use the following template instead:
class Parent():
def __init__(self, value):
self.__prop1 = value
#getter
#property
def prop1(self):
return self.__prop1
#setter
#prop1.setter
def prop1(self, value):
self.__prop1 = value
#deleter
#prop1.deleter
def prop1(self):
del self.__prop1
class Child(Parent):
#getter
#Parent.prop1.getter
def prop1(self):
return super(Child, Child).prop1.__get__(self)
#setter
#Parent.prop1.setter
def prop1(self, value):
super(Child, Child).prop1.__set__(self, value)
#deleter
#Parent.prop1.deleter
def prop1(self):
super(Child, Child).prop1.__delete__(self)

class Base(object):
def method(self):
print "Base method was called"
class Derived(Base):
def method(self):
super(Derived,self).method()
print "Derived method was called"
d = Derived()
d.method()
(that is unless I am missing something from your explanation)