For one of the project I am currently working I was thinking of creating a class that could not be instantiate by a client and only be supplied an instance of through a particular interface i.e. the client would not be able create further instance out of it by some hackery such as:
>>> try:
... raise WindowsError
... except:
... foo = sys.exc_info()
...
>>> foo
(<type 'exceptions.WindowsError'>, WindowsError(), <traceback object at 0x0000000005503A48>)
>>> type(foo[2])()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: cannot create 'traceback' instances
once he has one.
I was successfully able to create a class that couldn't be instantiated. i.e.
>>> class Foo():
... def __init__(self):
... raise TypeError("cannot create 'Foo' instances")
...
>>> bar = Foo()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in __init__
TypeError: cannot create 'Foo' instances
>>> bar
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'bar' is not defined
But how could I use this every same definition to create an instance of the class?
Of course I could do something like this:
>>> class Foo():
... def __init__(self, instantiate = False):
... if not instantiate:
... raise TypeError("cannot create 'Foo' instances")
but I don't find it elegant enough nor does it completely prevent the client from further instantiating it. And no I aint going down the road of building a C++ module for it.
Any suggestions on how to achieve such a thing? import abc?
A brief rational to answer Martijn's question and for completeness:
Actual you could consider the instance of the particular, and related, classes, in question, as nodes in a tree and that both the parent and the children to remain connected, dependent on and cognizant of each other and have a single unique root throughout any instance of python(insured by the use package). Any state changes in a particular node would cause others to update themselves and the database to which they are connect, accordingly. Apart from that I was being curious to know how such a thing could be put in place (the traceback class was teasing me).
What you're doing is a bad idea, you shouldn't do it.
I'm sure there's an other, better solution.
If you do decide to go with your way anyways (you shouldn't), here's how you can create an object without using __init__():
Objects in python are created with the __new__() method. The method __init__() only edits the object which was created by __new__(). For example, __init__() usually initializes some attributes for the object.
When declaring something like x = Foo() what happens is this:
x = object.__new__(Foo) gets called first and creates the object.
Foo.__init__(x) gets called second, it simply initializes some attributes etc. to the already existing object.
This means that you are not required to call Foo() (and as a result, call __init__() too). Instead, you can just call __new__() directly:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self):
raise TypeError("Cannot create 'Foo' instances.")
>>> x = object.__new__(Foo)
>>> x
<__main__.Foo object at 0x02B074F0>
Our x is now an instance of Foo, without any attributes that is, and it can use any methods defined in Foo class.
If you want, you can create your own replacement function of __init__ for initializing attributes:
def init_foo(foo, name):
foo.name = name
>>> init_foo(x, "Mike")
>>> x.name
'Mike'
This could of course be Foo's instance method too:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self):
raise TypeError("Cannot create 'Foo' instances.")
def init(self, name):
self.name = name
>>> x = object.__new__(Foo)
>>> x.init("Mike")
>>> x.name
'Mike'
Going even step further, you can even use a classmethod for creating your object with only one call:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self):
raise TypeError("Cannot create 'Foo' instances.")
#classmethod
def new(cls, name):
obj = object.__new__(cls)
obj.name = name
return obj
>>> x = Foo.new("Mike")
>>> x.name
'Mike'
Related
I'm trying to use super in a subclass which is wrapped in another class using a class decorator:
def class_decorator(cls):
class WrapperClass(object):
def make_instance(self):
return cls()
return WrapperClass
class MyClass(object):
def say(self, x):
print(x)
#class_decorator
class MySubclass(MyClass):
def say(self, x):
super(MySubclass, self).say(x.upper())
However, the call to super fails:
>>> MySubclass().make_instance().say('hello')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 4, in say
TypeError: super(type, obj): obj must be an instance or subtype of type
The problem is that, when say is called, MySubclass doesn't refer to the original class anymore, but to the return value of the decorator.
One possible solution would be to store the value of MySubclass before decorating it:
class MySubclass(MyClass):
def say(self, x):
super(_MySubclass, self).say(x.upper())
_MySubclass = MySubclass
MySubclass = class_decorator(MySubclass)
This works, but isn't intuitive and would need to be repeated for each decorated subclass. I'm looking for a way that doesn't need additional boilerplate for each decorated subclass -- adding more code in one place (say, the decorator) would be OK.
Update: In Python 3 this isn't a problem, since you can use __class__ (or the super variant without arguments), so the following works:
#class_decorator
class MySubclass(MyClass):
def say(self, x):
super().say(x.upper())
Unfortunately, I'm stuck with Python 2.7 for this project.
The problem is that your decorator returns a different class than python (or anyone who uses your code) expects. super not working is just one of the many unfortunate consequences:
>>> isinstance(MySubclass().make_instance(), MySubclass)
False
>>> issubclass(MySubclass, MyClass)
False
>>> pickle.dumps(MySubclass().make_instance())
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
_pickle.PicklingError: Can't pickle <class '__main__.MySubclass'>: it's not the same object as __main__.MySubclass
This is why a class decorator should modify the class instead of returning a different one. The correct implementation would look like this:
def class_decorator(wrapped_cls):
#classmethod
def make_instance(cls):
return cls()
wrapped_cls.make_instance = make_instance
return wrapped_cls
Now super and everything else will work as expected:
>>> MySubclass().make_instance().say('hello')
HELLO
The problem occurs because at the time when MySubclass.say() is called, the global symbol MySubclass no longer refers to what's defined in your code as 'class MySubclass'. It is an instance of WrapperClass, which isn't in any way related to MySubclass.
If you are using Python3, you can get around this by NOT passing any arguments to 'super', like this:
super().say(x.upper())
I don't really know why you use the specific construct that you have, but it does look strange that a sub-class of MyClass that defines 'say()' - and has itself a 'say()' method in the source code would have to end up as something that does not have that method - which is the case in your code.
Note you could change the class WrapperClass line to make it read
class WrapperClass(cls):
this will make your wrapper a sub-class of the one you just decorated. This doesn't help with your super(SubClass, self) call - you still need to remove the args (which is OK only on Python3), but at least an instance created as x=MySubclass() would have a 'say' method, as one would expect at first glance.
EDIT: I've come up with a way around this, but it really looks odd and has the disadvantage of making the 'wrapped' class know that it is being wrapped (and it becomes reliant on that, making it unusable if you remove the decorator):
def class_decorator(cls):
class WrapperClass(object):
def make_instance(self):
i = cls()
i._wrapped = cls
return i
return WrapperClass
class MyClass(object):
def say(self, x):
print(x)
#class_decorator
class MySubclass(MyClass):
def say(self, x):
super(self._wrapped, self).say(x.upper())
# make_instance returns inst of the original class, non-decorated i = MySubclass().make_instance() i.say('hello')
In essence, _wrapped saves a class reference as it was at declaration time, consistent with using the regular super(this_class_name, self) builtin call.
I want to call a method from the parent class in a child class.
I use XX.__init__() in my child class and call the press function from the parent class. But it fails when I run the following code:
Func.py
class PC:
def __init__(self):
PCKeyDis = {}
self.PCKeyDis = PCKeyDis
def Press(self,key):
KeyDis = self.PCKeyDis
if len(key)==1 and key.islower():
key = key.upper()
win32api.keybd_event(KeyDis[key],0,0,0)
time.sleep(0.1)
win32api.keybd_event(KeyDis[key],0,win32con.KEYEVENTF_KEYUP,0)
class PCFunc(PC):
def __init__(self):
pass
def Sentence(self,string):
PC.__init__()
strlist = list(string)
for i in xrange(len(strlist)):
if strlist[i] == ' ':
strlist[i] = 'Space'
PC.Press(strlist[i]) #use this function
action.py
import Func
import win32gui
PC = Func.PC()
PCFunc = Func.PCFunc ()
win32gui.SetForegroundWindow(win32gui.FindWindow(winclass,winnm))
PCFunc.Sentence(path)
I get:
unbound method Sentence() must be called with PCFunc instance as first argument (got str instance instead)
If you want to call the constructor of the base class, then you do it on instantiation in the __init__() method, not in the Sentence() method:
def __init__(self):
super(self.__class__, self).__init__()
Since Sentence() is an instance method, you need to call it via an instance of the class (like the error tells you):
pc_func = PCFunc()
pc_func.Sentence(var)
Here you are calling the method with an undefined variable:
PCFunc.Sentence(path)
Instead you need to give a string as parameter, so either write Sentence('path'), or define the variable first:
path = 'my path'
pc_func.Sentence(path)
Do not use the same name as the class name for an instance of the class:
PCFunc = Func.PCFunc ()
Otherwise the variable name storing the instance overwrites the class name.
Apart from that, it is unclear what your code is actually supposed to do. Have a look at the Python code conventions for a first step to making your code more readible. Then do some research about classes and inheritance.
The code you posted does not produce the error you posted. Here is an example that will produce that error:
class Dog:
def do_stuff(self, string):
print string
d = Dog()
d.do_stuff('hello')
Dog.do_stuff(d, 'goodbye')
Dog.do_stuff('goodbye')
--output:--
hello
goodbye
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "1.py", line 9, in <module>
Dog.do_stuff('goodbye')
TypeError: unbound method do_stuff() must be called with Dog instance as first argument (got str instance instead)
An __init__() function can also produce that error:
class Dog:
def __init__(self):
pass
def do_stuff(self, string):
print(string)
Dog.__init__()
--output:--
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "1.py", line 7, in <module>
Dog.__init__()
TypeError: unbound method __init__() must be called with Dog instance as first argument (got nothing instead)
In the line:
d.do_stuff('hello')
the fragment d.do_stuff causes python to create and return a bound method object--which is then immediately executed by the function execution operator () in the fragment ('hello’). The bound method is bound to the instance d, hence the reason it is called a bound method. A bound method automatically passes the instance it contains to the method when the method is executed.
On the other hand, when you write:
Dog.do_stuff(....)
the fragment Dog.do_stuff causes python to create and return an unbound method. An unbound method does not contain an instance, so when an unbound method is executed by the function execution operator (), you must manually pass an instance. (In python3, things changed and you can pass anything as the first argument--an instance of the class isn't required.)
I am trying to debug a multi-threaded program that uses a third-party package.
At some point, one of the attributes of an object (that is not created directly by me) is changed and I can't figure out what changed it. I could not find anything in my code that changes it.
Since this is a third-party package, I prefer not to change its code directly, but rather patch it from the outside as necessary.
My plan was to somehow tap into or wrap the code that sets the attribute and set a breakpoint or print the stack trace from there.
I tried monkey-patching the __setattr__ method of the instance, but it was not triggered.
I also tried to patch the class itself:
def patch_class(target):
def method(self, name, value):
print(name, value)
print("called from", target)
setattr(self, name, value) # break or print trace here
target.__setattr__ = types.MethodType(method, target)
patch_class(WebSocket)
but then all of the attributes are set on the class itself, as the method is bound to it.
Wrapping the class with a proxy does not really help either, since I am not instantiating it myself, but rather get the instance at some point after its creation.
If it matters, the said class is ws4py's WebSocket that is created by another third-party package, but I consider this an exercise in general debugging techniques.
Is there a more "pythonic" way of tapping into the mutation of an existing instance? (hack-ish ways will be appreciated as well)
I ended up creating a __setattr__ for the class.
def setter_fun(self, name, value):
print('setting', name, value)
self.__dict__[name] = value
if name is 'problematic_prop' and value is 'problematicValue':
traceback.print_stack()
# and set the class setter magic method
instance.__class__.__setattr__ = setter_fun
It is also possible to use setattr instead of using the __dict__ magic property:
setattr(self, name, value)
Now, when something sets the instance's problematic_prop to problematicValue, the stack trace will be printed:
>>> class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.foo = 1
def set_problematic(self):
self.problematic_prop = 'problematicValue'
>>> a = A()
>>> a.__class__.__setattr__ = setter_fun
>>> a.foo = 2
setting foo 2
>>> print(a.foo)
2
>>> a.set_problematic()
setting problematic_prop problematicValue
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<input>", line 1, in <module>
File "<input>", line 6, in set_problematic
File "<input>", line 5, in setter_fun
NameError: name 'traceback' is not defined
My failed attempts included either trying to attach the __setattr__ to the instance instead of the class, or trying to attach a bound method:
class MyClass(object):
def setter_fun(self, name, value):
print('setting', name, value)
self.__dict__[name] = value
if name is 'problematic_prop' and value is 'problematicValue':
traceback.print_stack()
def set_my_function(self):
# won't work, the function is bound to the current instance (self)
some.instace.__class__.__setattr__ = self.setter_fun
The aim is to add additional functions to the wordnet class in nltk, e.g.:
from nltk.corpus import wordnet
class WN(wordnet):
def foobar(self):
print 'foobar'
x = WN
WN.foobar()
but it gives an error:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/alvas/workspace/pybabel-fresh/babelnet/utils/pybabel_WordNet.py", line 5, in <module>
class WN(wordnet):
File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/nltk/corpus/util.py", line 44, in __init__
assert issubclass(reader_cls, CorpusReader)
TypeError: Error when calling the metaclass bases
issubclass() arg 1 must be a class
So I tried with nltk.corpus.reader.WordNetCorpusReader
(http://www.nltk.org/_modules/nltk/corpus/reader/wordnet.html#WordNetCorpusReader):
from nltk.corpus.reader import WordNetCorpusReader
class WN(WordNetCorpusReader):
def __init__(self):
self = WN.__init__()
def foobar(self):
return "foobar"
x = WN
x.foobar()
Still it seems like if I'm using WordNetCorpusReader, I need to instantiate it, so I got:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/alvas/workspace/pybabel-fresh/babelnet/utils/pybabel_WordNet.py", line 13, in <module>
x.foobar()
TypeError: unbound method foobar() must be called with WN instance as first argument (got nothing instead)
Then I tried:
from nltk.corpus.reader import WordNetCorpusReader
class WN(WordNetCorpusReader):
def foobar(self):
return "foobar"
x = WN
for i in x.all_synsets():
print i
[out]:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/alvas/workspace/pybabel-fresh/babelnet/utils/pybabel_WordNet.py", line 10, in <module>
for i in x.all_synsets():
TypeError: unbound method all_synsets() must be called with WN instance as first argument (got nothing instead)
How do I extend the nltk wordnet API with new functions? Note: that the aim is to create a new class with the new functions.
Your second attempt seems closest. The problem there is with your constructor:
class WN(WordNetCorpusReader):
def __init__(self):
self = WN.__init__() # needs an instance as the first argument, recursive, and no need to assign to self
The __init__ method needs an instance as its first argument (here self), and in addition you are calling the __init__ method of the wrong class. This will lead to a RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded error. Finally, you simply want to call the method; you don't need to assign the results of the method to self.
I think you meant to do this instead:
from nltk.corpus.reader import WordNetCorpusReader
import nltk
class WN(WordNetCorpusReader):
def __init__(self, *args):
WordNetCorpusReader.__init__(self, *args)
def foobar(self):
return "foobar"
The catch is, though, that you will need to pass the required WordNetCorpusReader.__init__ args to your new class. In my version of nltk, that means you will need to pass a root argument as follows:
>>> x = WN(nltk.data.find('corpora/wordnet'))
>>> x.foobar()
'foobar'
>>> x.synsets('run')
[Synset('run.n.01'), Synset('test.n.05'), ...]
A more efficient approach
A much more efficient way to do the same thing is as follows:
class WN(WordNetCorpusReader):
root = nltk.data.find('corpora/wordnet') # make root a class variable, so you only need to load it once
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
WordNetCorpusReader.__init__(self, WN.root, *args, **kwargs) # add root yourself here, so no arguments are required
def foobar(self):
return "foobar"
Now test it:
>>> x = WN()
>>> x.foobar()
'foobar'
>>> x.synsets('run')
[Synset('run.n.01'), Synset('test.n.05'), ...]
By the way, I've enjoyed seeing your work on the nltk tag.
I'm trying to implement a configuration system contained within a module. The core configuration variable is a class instance and a global variable in this module. It seems that when I import this variable, I cannot use it as a class for some reason.
Consider this minimal example:
foomodule.py:
class FooClass:
number = 5
def bar (self):
return self.number
foo = FooClass
foo.number = 5
main.py
from foomodule import foo
print foo.bar()
Running main.py results in a cryptic error message:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "main.py", line 2, in <module>
print foo.bar()
TypeError: unbound method bar() must be called with FooClass instance as first argument (got nothing instead)
But I am calling it with a FooClass instance which I'd think should be the self argument like it usually is. What am I doing wrong here?
You only bound foo to the class; you didn't make it an instance:
foo = FooClass # only creates an additional reference
Call the class:
foo = FooClass() # creates an instance of FooClass
In Python you usually don't use accessor methods; just reference foo.number in your main module, rather than use foo.bar() to obtain it.
In your example foo is just an alias for FooClass. I assume that your actual problem is more complicated than your snippet. However, if you really need a class method, you can annotate it with #classmethod decorator.
class FooClass(object):
number = 5
#classmethod
def bar(cls):
return cls.number
To use your the class you could do:
from foomodule import Foo
Foo.bar()
Or you can access the class member directly
Foo.number