Is it pythonic to store the expected exceptions of a funcion as attributes of the function itself? or just a stinking bad practice.
Something like this
class MyCoolError(Exception):
pass
def function(*args):
"""
:raises: MyCoolError
"""
# do something here
if some_condition:
raise MyCoolError
function.MyCoolError = MyCoolError
And there in other module
try:
function(...)
except function.MyCoolError:
#...
Pro: Anywhere I have a reference to my function, I have also a reference to the exception it can raise, and I don't have to import it explicitly.
Con: I "have" to repeat the name of the exception to bind it to the function. This could be done with a decorator, but it is also added complexity.
EDIT
Why I am doing this is because I append some methods in an irregular way to some classes, where I think that a mixin it is not worth it. Let's call it "tailored added functionality". For instance let's say:
Class A uses method fn1 and fn2
Class B uses method fn2 and fn3
Class C uses fn4 ...
And like this for about 15 classes.
So when I call obj_a.fn2(), I have to import explicitly the exception it may raise (and it is not in the module where classes A, B or C, but in another one where the shared methods live)... which I think it is a little bit annoying. Appart from that, the standard style in the project I'm working in forces to write one import per line, so it gets pretty verbose.
In some code I have seen exceptions stored as class attributes, and I have found it pretty useful, like:
try:
obj.fn()
except obj.MyCoolError:
....
I think it is not Pythonic. I also think that it does not provide a lot of advantage over the standard way which should be to just import the exception along with the function.
There is a reason (besides helping the interpreter) why Python programs use import statements to state where their code comes from; it helps finding the code of the facilities (e. g. your exception in this case) you are using.
The whole idea has the smell of the declaration of exceptions as it is possible in C++ and partly mandatory in Java. There are discussions amongst the language lawyers whether this is a good idea or a bad one, and in the Python world the designers decided against it, so it is not Pythonic.
It also raises a whole bunch of further questions. What happens if your function A is using another function B which then, later, is changed so that it can throw an exception (a valid thing in Python). Are you willing to change your function A then to reflect that (or catch it in A)? Where would you want to draw the line — is using int(text) to convert a string to int reason enough to "declare" that a ValueError can be thrown?
All in all I think it is not Pythonic, no.
Related
When using try/except blocks in Python, is there a recommendation to delegate it to any methods that might raise an exception, or to catch it in the parent function, or both?
For example, which of the following is preferred?
def my_function():
s = something.that.might.go_wrong()
return s
def main():
try:
s = my_function()
except Exception:
print "Error"
or
def my_function():
try:
s = something.that.might.go_wrong()
return s
except Exception:
print "Error"
def main():
s = my_function()
PEP 8 seems to be quiet on the matter, and I seem to find examples of both cases everywhere.
It really depends on the semantics of the functions in question. In general if you're writing a library, your library probably should handle exceptions that get raised inside the library (optionally re-raising them as new library-specific exceptions).
At the individual function level, though, the main thing you want to think about is what context/scope you desire to handle the exception in - if there is a reasonable different thing you could do in exceptional cases within the inner function, it might be useful to handle it within the inner function; otherwise, it might make more sense to handle it in the outer function.
For the specific case of writing output, it's often useful to only do that at the highest level, and inner functions only ever (a) return values or (b) raise exceptions. That makes the code easier to test because you don't have to worry about testing side effect output.
If you are following the rule of "one function should handle one task" then You shouldn't handle exception in that function, Let it fail loudly on unexpected input. Parent function which calling such function may handle to give better experience to user.
We can refer python builtin functions to get pythonic way
I always use the second one. Logically to me it seems that the problems of a function should be dealt with in that function only. This would provide user a clean and a hassle free interface, so you could later put your code in a library.
There could be some cases where you would want to use exceptions outside the function. For example if you want to print a particular message when something goes wrong then you should use the exception out of the function.
However you could provide the exception statements as a argument to the function if you want to give user the ability to decide his own exception message. So i guess the Second example(exception inside the function) would be universal and thus should be preferred.
I know this may sound like a stupid question, especially to someone who knows python's nature, but I was just wondering, is there a way to know if an object "implements an interface" so as to say?
To give an example of what I want to say:
let's say I have this function:
def get_counts(sequence):
counts = {}
for x in sequence:
if x in counts:
counts[x] += 1
else:
counts[x] = 1
return counts
My question is: Is there a way to make sure that the object passed to the function is iterable? I know that in Java or C# I could do this by having the method accept any object that implements a specific interface, let's say (for example) iIterable like this: void get_counts(iIterable sequence)
My guess is that in Python I would have to employ preemptive introspection checks (in a decorator perhaps?) and throw a custom exception if the object doesn't have an __iter__ attribute). But is there a more pythonic way to do this?
Use polymorphism and duck-typing before isinstance() or interfaces
You generally define what you want to do with your objects, then either use polymorphism to adjust how each object responds to what you want to do, or you use duck typing; test if the object at hand can do the thing you want to do in the first place. This is the invocation versus introspection trade-off, conventional wisdom states that invocation is preferable over introspection, but in Python, duck-typing is preferred over isinstance testing.
So you need to work out why you need to filter on wether or not something is iterable in the first place; why do you need to know this? Just use a try: iter(object), except TypeError: # not iterable to test.
Or perhaps you just need to throw an exception if whatever that was passed was not an iterable, as that would signal an error.
ABCs
With duck-typing, you may find that you have to test for multiple methods, and thus a isinstance() test may look a better option. In such cases, using a Abstract Base Class (ABC) could also be an option; using an ABC let's you 'paint' several different classes as being the right type for a given operation, for example. Using a ABC let's you focus on the tasks that need to be performed rather than the specific implementations used; you can have a Paintable ABC, a Printable ABC, etc.
Zope interfaces and component architecture
If you find your application is using an awful lot of ABCs or you keep having to add polymorphic methods to your classes to deal with various different situations, the next step is to consider using a full-blown component architecture, such as the Zope Component Architecture (ZCA).
zope.interface interfaces are ABCs on steroids, especially when combined with the ZCA adapters. Interfaces document expected behaviour of a class:
if IFrobnarIterable.providedBy(yourobject):
# it'll support iteration and yield Frobnars.
but it also let's you look up adapters; instead of putting all the behaviours for every use of shapes in your classes, you implement adapters to provide polymorphic behaviours for specific use-cases. You can adapt your objects to be printable, or iterable, or exportable to XML:
class FrobnarsXMLExport(object):
adapts(IFrobnarIterable)
provides(IXMLExport)
def __init__(self, frobnariterator):
self.frobnars = frobnariterator
def export(self):
entries = []
for frobnar in self.frobnars:
entries.append(
u'<frobnar><width>{0}</width><height>{0}</height></frobnar>'.format(
frobnar.width, frobnar.height)
return u''.join(entries)
and your code merely has to look up adapters for each shape:
for obj in setofobjects:
self.result.append(IXMLExport(obj).export())
Python (since 2.6) has abstract base classes (aka virtual interfaces), which are more flexible than Java or C# interfaces. To check whether an object is iterable, use collections.Iterable:
if isinstance(obj, collections.Iterable):
...
However, if your else block would just raise an exception, then the most Python answer is: don't check! It's up to your caller to pass in an appropriate type; you just need to document that you're expecting an iterable object.
The Pythonic way is to use duck typing and, "ask forgiveness, not permission". This usually means performing an operation in a try block assuming it behaves the way you expect it to, then handling other cases in an except block.
I think this is the way that the community would recommend you do it:
import sys
def do_something(foo):
try:
for i in foo:
process(i)
except:
t, ex, tb = sys.exc_info()
if "is not iterable" in ex.message:
print "Is not iterable"
do_something(True)
Or, you could use something like zope.interface.
Is there a way to 'detect' what exceptions function/method raises? Examplifying:
def foo():
print 'inside foo, next calling bar()'
_bar()
_baz()
# lots of other methods calls which raise other legitimate exceptions
def _bar():
raise my_exceptions.NotFound
def _baz():
raise my_exceptions.BadRequest
so, supposing that foo is part of my API and I need to document it, is there a way to get all exceptions that can be raised from it?
Just to be clear I don't want to handle those exceptions, they are supposed to happen (when a resource is not found or the request is malformed for instance).
I'm thinking to create some tool that transform that sequence of code in something 'inline' like:
def foo():
print 'inside foo, next calling bar()'
# what _bar() does
raise my_exceptions.NotFound
# what _baz() does
raise my_exceptions.BadRequest
# lots of other methods calls which raise other legitimate exceptions
Is there anything that can help me detect that instead of navigate through each method call? (Which goes deep into several files.)
You can't reasonably do this with Python, for a few reasons:
1) The Python primitives don't document precisely what exceptions they can throw. The Python ethos is that anything can throw any exception at any time.
2) Python's dynamic nature makes it very difficult to statically analyze code at all, it's pretty much impossible to know what code "might" do.
3) All sorts of uninteresting exceptions would have to be in the list, for example, if you have self.foo, then it could raise AttributeError. It would take a very sophisticated analyzer to figure out that foo must exist.
No, because of the dynamic nature of Python. How would your tool work if a function took another function chosen at runtime (very common), or if the code is later monkeypatched?
There's simply no way to know ahead of time (in enough situations for it to be useful), what the interpreter is going to do through static analysis. You effectively have to run the interpreter and see what happens, which of course could change between runs...
Specifically the ":int" part...
I assumed it somehow checked the type of the parameter at the time the function is called and perhaps raised an exception in the case of a violation. But the following run without problems:
def some_method(param:str):
print("blah")
some_method(1)
def some_method(param:int):
print("blah")
some_method("asdfaslkj")
In both cases "blah" is printed - no exception raised.
I'm not sure what the name of the feature is so I wasn't sure what to google.
EDIT: OK, so it's http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/. I can see how it'd be useful in frameworks that utilize metadata. It's not what I assumed it was. Thanks for the responses!
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION - Any thoughts on whether it's a good idea or bad idea to define my functions as def some_method(param:int) if I really only can handle int inputs - even if, as pep 3107 explains, it's just metadata - no enforcement as I originally assumed? At least the consumers of the methods will see clearly what I intended. It's an alternative to documentation. Think this is good/bad/waste of time? Granted, good parameter naming (unlike my contrived example) usually makes it clear what types are meant to be passed in.
it's not used for anything much - it's just there for experimentation (you can read them from within python if you want, for example). they are called "function annotations" and are described in pep 3107.
i wrote a library that builds on it to do things like type checking (and more - for example you can map more easily from JSON to python objects) called pytyp (more info), but it's not very popular... (i should also add that the type checking part of pytyp is not at all efficient - it can be useful for tracking down a bug, but you wouldn't want to use it across an entire program).
[update: i would not recommend using function annotations in general (ie with no particular use in mind, just as docs) because (1) they might eventually get used in a way that you didn't expect and (2) the exact type of things is often not that important in python (more exactly, it's not always clear how best to specify the type of something in a useful way - objects can be quite complex, and often only "parts" are used by any one function, with multiple classes implementing those parts in different ways...). this is a consequence of duck typing - see the "more info" link for related discussion on how python's abstract base classes could be used to tackle this...]
Function annotations are what you make of them.
They can be used for documentation:
def kinetic_energy(mass: 'in kilograms', velocity: 'in meters per second'):
...
They can be used for pre-condition checking:
def validate(func, locals):
for var, test in func.__annotations__.items():
value = locals[var]
msg = 'Var: {0}\tValue: {1}\tTest: {2.__name__}'.format(var, value, test)
assert test(value), msg
def is_int(x):
return isinstance(x, int)
def between(lo, hi):
def _between(x):
return lo <= x <= hi
return _between
def f(x: between(3, 10), y: is_int):
validate(f, locals())
print(x, y)
>>> f(0, 31.1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
AssertionError: Var: y Value: 31.1 Test: is_int
Also see http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0362/ for a way to implement type checking.
Not experienced in python, but I assume the point is to annotate/declare the parameter type that the method expects. Whether or not the expected type is rigidly enforced at runtime is beside the point.
For instance, consider:
intToHexString(param:int)
Although the language may technically allow you to call intToHexString("Hello"), it's not semantically meaningful to do so. Having the :int as part of the method declaration helps to reinforce that.
It's basically just used for documentation. When some examines the method signature, they'll see that param is labelled as an int, which will tell them the author of the method expected them to pass an int.
Because Python programmers use duck typing, this doesn't mean you have to pass an int, but it tells you the code is expecting something "int-like". So you'll probably have to pass something basically "numeric" in nature, that supports arithmetic operations. Depending on the method it may have to be usable as an index, or it may not.
However, because it's syntax and not just a comment, the annotation is visible to any code that wants to introspect it. This opens up the possibility of writing a typecheck decorator that can enforce strict type checking on arbitrary functions; this allows you to put the type checking logic in one place, and have each method declare which parameters it wants strictly type checked (by attaching a type annotation) with a minimum on syntax, in a way that is visible to client programmers who are browsing method definitions to find out the interface.
Or you could do other things with those annotations. No standardized meaning has yet been developed. Maybe if someone comes up with a killer feature that uses them and has huge adoption, then it'll one day become part of the Python language, but I suspect the flexibility of using them however you want will be too useful to ever do that.
You might also use the "-> returnValue" notation to indicate what type the function might return.
def mul(a:int, b:int) -> None:
print(a*b)
Can you explain the concept stubbing out functions or classes taken from this article?
class Loaf:
pass
This class doesn't define any methods or attributes, but syntactically, there needs to be something in the definition, so you use pass. This is a Python reserved word that just means “move along, nothing to see here”. It's a statement that does nothing, and it's a good placeholder when you're stubbing out functions or classes.`
thank you
stubbing out functions or classes
This refers to writing classes or functions but not yet implementing them. For example, maybe I create a class:
class Foo(object):
def bar(self):
pass
def tank(self):
pass
I've stubbed out the functions because I haven't yet implemented them. However, I don't think this is a great plan. Instead, you should do:
class Foo(object):
def bar(self):
raise NotImplementedError
def tank(self):
raise NotImplementedError
That way if you accidentally call the method before it is implemented, you'll get an error then nothing happening.
A 'stub' is a placeholder class or function that doesn't do anything yet, but needs to be there so that the class or function in question is defined. The idea is that you can already use certain aspects of it (such as put it in a collection or pass it as a callback), even though you haven't written the implementation yet.
Stubbing is a useful technique in a number of scenarios, including:
Team development: Often, the lead programmer will provide class skeletons filled with method stubs and a comment describing what the method should do, leaving the actual implementation to other team members.
Iterative development: Stubbing allows for starting out with partial implementations; the code won't be complete yet, but it still compiles. Details are filled in over the course of later iterations.
Demonstrational purposes: If the content of a method or class isn't interesting for the purpose of the demonstration, it is often left out, leaving only stubs.
Note that you can stub functions like this:
def get_name(self) -> str : ...
def get_age(self) -> int : ...
(yes, this is valid python code !)
It can be useful to stub functions that are added dynamically to an object by a third party library and you want have typing hints.
Happens to me... once :-)
Ellipsis ... is preferable to pass for stubbing.
pass means "do nothing", whereas ... means "something should go here" - it's a placeholder for future code. The effect is the same but the meaning is different.
Stubbing is a technique in software development. After you have planned a module or class, for example by drawing it's UML diagram, you begin implementing it.
As you may have to implement a lot of methods and classes, you begin with stubs. This simply means that you only write the definition of a function down and leave the actual code for later. The advantage is that you won't forget methods and you can continue to think about your design while seeing it in code.
The reason for pass is that Python is indentation dependent and expects one or more indented statement after a colon (such as after class or function).
When you have no statements (as in the case of a stubbed out function or class), there still needs to be at least one indented statement, so you can use the special pass statement as a placeholder. You could just as easily put something with no effect like:
class Loaf:
True
and that is also fine (but less clear than using pass in my opinion).