I have a Ruby class with all static methods. I want to use these methods in another class. Passing just the class name works but wondering if its the right way to go or is there another way.
class Foo
IDENTIFIER = 'UYT78'
def self.some_data
DB.fetch_records
end
# and so forth
end
class Bar
IDENTIFIER = 'XXXXX'
def self.some_data
DB.fetch_records
end
# and so forth
end
class Reporter
def report
Foo.some_data.select {|x| x.id == Foo::identifier}
end
def other_report
Bar.some_data.select {|x| x.id == Foo::identifier}
end
end
Can Reporter be changed to accept Foo as argument to the methods so these methods can be re-used based on the argument being passed?
Reporter.report(Foo)
Reporter.report(Bar)
and report method looks like
def report(klass)
klass.some_data.select {|x| x.id == Foo::identifier}
end
This approach works but passing a class name like this as argument doesn't feel right? Or may be it is?
That's fine... generally it's referred to as duck-typing... as long as the class passed supports #some_data method, it doesn't really matter what specific class it is. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
It's possible you may want to store the target class at initialization.
class Reporter
attr_accessor :klass
def initialize(klass)
self.klass = klass
end
def report
klass.some_data.select
end
end
my_foo_reporter = Reporter.new(Foo)
my_foo_reporter.report # calls some_date on Foo class
What you are trying to do is nice but rather than passing the class like that I would use ruby's require.
foo.rb
class Foo
IDENTIFIER = 'UYT78'.freeze
def self.some_data
'Foo'
end
end
bar.rb
class Bar
IDENTIFIER = 'XXXXX'.freeze
def self.some_data
'Bar'
end
end
reporter.rb
require './foo'
require './bar'
class Reporter
def report
p Foo.some_data
p Foo::IDENTIFIER
end
def other_report
p Bar.some_data
p Bar::IDENTIFIER
end
end
Reporter.new.report
puts '----------------'
Reporter.new.other_report
Which would return like below (Just and example)-
"Foo"
"UYT78"
----------------
"Bar"
"XXXXX"
In my opinion it's much cleaner.
Perhaps this is what you are looking for.
class Foo
IDENTIFIER = 'UYT78'
def self.some_data
['ABC21', 'UYT78']
end
end
class Bar
IDENTIFIER = 'XXXXX'
def self.some_data
['XXXXX', 'DEF38']
end
end
class Reporter
def report(klass)
k = Module.const_get(klass)
k.public_send(:some_data).select {|x| x == k::IDENTIFIER}
end
end
reporter = Reporter.new
reporter.report("Foo") #=> ["UYT78"]
reporter.report("Bar") #=> ["XXXXX"]
reporter.report(:Bar) #=> ["XXXXX"]
Related
I'm working to create a few Ruby builder objects, and thinking on how I could reuse some of Ruby's magic to reduce the logic of the builder to a single class/module. It's been ~10 years since my last dance with the language, so a bit rusty.
For example, I have this builder:
class Person
PROPERTIES = [:name, :age]
attr_accessor(*PROPERTIES)
def initialize(**kwargs)
kwargs.each do |k, v|
self.send("#{k}=", v) if self.respond_to?(k)
end
end
def build
output = {}
PROPERTIES.each do |prop|
if self.respond_to?(prop) and !self.send(prop).nil?
value = self.send(prop)
# if value itself is a builder, evalute it
output[prop] = value.respond_to?(:build) ? value.build : value
end
end
output
end
def method_missing(m, *args, &block)
if m.to_s.start_with?("set_")
mm = m.to_s.gsub("set_", "")
if PROPERTIES.include?(mm.to_sym)
self.send("#{mm}=", *args)
return self
end
end
end
end
Which can be used like so:
Person.new(name: "Joe").set_age(30).build
# => {name: "Joe", age: 30}
I would like to be able to refactor everything to a class and/or module so that I could create multiple such builders that'll only need to define attributes and inherit or include the rest (and possibly extend each other).
class BuilderBase
# define all/most relevant methods here for initialization,
# builder attributes and object construction
end
module BuilderHelper
# possibly throw some of the methods here for better scope access
end
class Person < BuilderBase
include BuilderHelper
PROPERTIES = [:name, :age, :email, :address]
attr_accessor(*PROPERTIES)
end
# Person.new(name: "Joe").set_age(30).set_email("joe#mail.com").set_address("NYC").build
class Server < BuilderBase
include BuilderHelper
PROPERTIES = [:cpu, :memory, :disk_space]
attr_accessor(*PROPERTIES)
end
# Server.new.set_cpu("i9").set_memory("32GB").set_disk_space("1TB").build
I've been able to get this far:
class BuilderBase
def initialize(**kwargs)
kwargs.each do |k, v|
self.send("#{k}=", v) if self.respond_to?(k)
end
end
end
class Person < BuilderBase
PROPERTIES = [:name, :age]
attr_accessor(*PROPERTIES)
def build
...
end
def method_missing(m, *args, &block)
...
end
end
Trying to extract method_missing and build into the base class or a module keeps throwing an error at me saying something like:
NameError: uninitialized constant BuilderHelper::PROPERTIES
OR
NameError: uninitialized constant BuilderBase::PROPERTIES
Essentially the neither the parent class nor the mixin are able to access the child class' attributes. For the parent this makes sense, but not sure why the mixin can't read the values inside the class it was included into. This being Ruby I'm sure there's some magical way to do this that I have missed.
Help appreciated - thanks!
I reduced your sample to the required parts and came up with:
module Mixin
def say_mixin
puts "Mixin: Value defined in #{self.class::VALUE}"
end
end
class Parent
def say_parent
puts "Parent: Value defined in #{self.class::VALUE}"
end
end
class Child < Parent
include Mixin
VALUE = "CHILD"
end
child = Child.new
child.say_mixin
child.say_parent
This is how you could access a CONSTANT that lives in the child/including class from the parent/included class.
But I don't see why you want to have this whole Builder thing in the first place. Would an OpenStruct not work for your case?
Interesting question. As mentioned by #Pascal, an OpenStruct might already do what you're looking for.
Still, it might be more concise to explicitly define the setter methods. It might also be clearer to replace the PROPERTIES constants by methods calls. And since I'd expect a build method to return a complete object and not just a Hash, I renamed it to to_h:
class BuilderBase
def self.properties(*ps)
ps.each do |property|
attr_reader property
define_method :"set_#{property}" do |value|
instance_variable_set(:"##{property}", value)
#hash[property] = value
self
end
end
end
def initialize(**kwargs)
#hash = {}
kwargs.each do |k, v|
self.send("set_#{k}", v) if self.respond_to?(k)
end
end
def to_h
#hash
end
end
class Person < BuilderBase
properties :name, :age, :email, :address
end
p Person.new(name: "Joe").set_age(30).set_email("joe#mail.com").set_address("NYC").to_h
# {:name=>"Joe", :age=>30, :email=>"joe#mail.com", :address=>"NYC"}
class Server < BuilderBase
properties :cpu, :memory, :disk_space
end
p Server.new.set_cpu("i9").set_memory("32GB").set_disk_space("1TB").to_h
# {:cpu=>"i9", :memory=>"32GB", :disk_space=>"1TB"}
I think no need to declare PROPERTIES, we can create a general builder like this:
class Builder
attr_reader :build
def initialize(clazz)
#build = clazz.new
end
def self.build(clazz, &block)
builder = Builder.new(clazz)
builder.instance_eval(&block)
builder.build
end
def set(attr, val)
#build.send("#{attr}=", val)
self
end
def method_missing(m, *args, &block)
if #build.respond_to?("#{m}=")
set(m, *args)
else
#build.send("#{m}", *args, &block)
end
self
end
def respond_to_missing?(method_name, include_private = false)
#build.respond_to?(method_name) || super
end
end
Using
class Test
attr_accessor :x, :y, :z
attr_reader :w, :u, :v
def set_w(val)
#w = val&.even? ? val : 0
end
def add_u(val)
#u = val if val&.odd?
end
end
test1 = Builder.build(Test) {
x 1
y 2
z 3
} # <Test:0x000055b6b0fb2888 #x=1, #y=2, #z=3>
test2 = Builder.new(Test).set(:x, 1988).set_w(6).add_u(2).build
# <Test:0x000055b6b0fb23b0 #x=1988, #w=6>
I'm currently doing some metaprogramming with ruby, and I'm trying to isolate the methods of class (that class is in another file, that I get by a require). I can get all the methods, thanks to klass.public_instance_methods(false), but I in the sametime, the array given also have all the attributes of the class. How could I isolate them ? In others related questions on SO, they suggest to use klass.instance_variables but when I do that, it only returns an empty array.
I can't seem to wrap my head around that one. I don't understand why there isn't a method specifically for that already...
For example:
I have in a file this class :
class T
attr_reader:a
def initialize(a)
#a = a
end
def meth
#code here
end
end
And, in another file, i have
require_relative 'T.rb'
class meta
def initialize
methods = T.public_instance_methods(false) #=> here methods = [:a,:meth] but I would want only to have [:meth]
#rest of code
end
end
For class defined like this:
class Klass
attr_accessor :variable
def initialize(variable)
#variable = variable
end
def method
end
end
you can find public non-attr instance methods using public_instance_methods and instance_variables methods.
public_instance_methods = Klass.public_instance_methods(false)
# [:method, :variable, :variable=]
instance_variables = Klass.new(nil).instance_variables
# [:#variable]
getters_and_setters = instance_variables
.map(&:to_s)
.map{|v| v[1..-1] }
.flat_map {|v| [v, v + '=']}
.map(&:to_sym)
# [:variable, :variable=]
without_attr = public_instance_methods - getters_and_setters
# [:method]
This is impossible. Ruby's "attributes" are completely normal methods. There is no way to distinguish them from other methods. For example, these two classes are completely indistinguishable:
class Foo
attr_reader :bar
end
class Foo
def bar
#bar
end
end
You can try to be clever and filter them out based on instance variables, but that is dangerous:
class Foo
# can filter this out using #bar
attr_writer :bar
def initialize
#bar = []
end
end
class Foo
def initialize
#bar = []
end
# this looks the same as above, but isn't a normal attribute!
def bar= x
#bar = x.to_a
end
end
I'm trying to create a method that passes the caller as the default last argument. According to this, I only need:
class A
def initialize(object = self)
# work with object
end
end
so that in:
class B
def initialize
A.new # self is a B instance here
end
end
self will be B rather than A;
However, this doesn't seem to work. Here's some test code:
class A
def self.test test, t=self
puts t
end
end
class B
def test test,t=self
puts t
end
end
class T
def a
A.test 'hey'
end
def b
B.new.test 'hey'
end
def self.a
A.test 'hey'
end
def self.b
B.new.test'hey'
end
end
and I get:
T.new.a # => A
T.new.b # => #<B:0x000000015fef00>
T.a # => A
T.b # => #<B:0x000000015fed98>
whereas I expect it to be T or #<T:0x000000015fdf08>. Is there a way to set the default last argument to the caller?
EDIT:
class Registry
class << self
def add(component, base=self)
self.send(component).update( base.to_s.split('::').last => base)
end
end
end
The idea is pretty simple, you would use it like this
class Asset_Manager
Registry.add :utilities
end
and you access it like:
include Registry.utilities 'Debugger'
I'm trying to de-couple classes by having a middle-man management type class that takes care of inter-class communications, auto-loading of missing classes and erroring when it doesn't exist, it works but I just want to be able to use the above rather than:
class Asset_Manager
Registry.add :utilities, self
end
It just feels cleaner, that and I wanted to know if such a thing was possible.
You can't escape the explicit self. But you can hide it with some ruby magic.
class Registry
def self.add(group, klass)
puts "registering #{klass} in #{group}"
end
end
module Registrable
def self.included(base)
base.extend(ClassMethods)
end
module ClassMethods
def register_in(group)
Registry.add(group, self)
end
end
end
class AssetManager
include Registrable
register_in :utilities
end
# >> registering AssetManager in utilities
In short, you can't.
Ruby resolves the default arguments in the context of the receiver. That is, the object before the . in a method call. What you called the receiver should be the caller, actually.
class A
def test1(value = a)
puts a
end
def test2(value = b)
puts b
end
def a
"a"
end
end
a = A.new
a.test1 #=> a
def a.b; "b" end
a.test2 #=> b
If I were you, I would use the extended (or included) hook, where both the extending class and the extended module can be accessed. You can program what ever logic you want based on the information.
module Registry
module Utilities
def self.extended(cls)
#puts cls
::Registry.send(component).update( cls.to_s.split('::').last => cls)
end
end
end
class Asset_Manager
extend Registry::Utilities
end
I am using g a logger in all of my classes.
I want each msg to begin with class name and method name like so:
Class_name::Method_name
this is what i'm doing now :
class FOO
def initialize
end
def bar
msg_prefix = "#{self.class}::#{__method__}"
... some code ...
#logeer = "#{msg_prefix} msg ..."
end
def bar2
msg_prefix = "#{self.class}::#{__method__}"
... some code 2 ...
#logeer = "#{msg_prefix} msg2 ..."
end
end
i want to use a before_filter like in rails to prevent duplicity,
I am using sinatra but the classes are plain old ruby 1.9.3 classes
ideas??
You can get a callback on any method being created with Module#method_added, alias the old method, then define a new method that calls the before_filter method first. Here's my (extremely) rough first concept:
module Filter
def before_filter name
##filter = name
end
def method_added name
return if #filtering # Don't add filters to original_ methods
return if ##filter == name # Don't filter filters
return if name == :initialize
#filtering = true
alias_method :"original_#{name}", name
define_method name do |*args|
self.send ##filter, name
self.send :"original_#{name}", *args
end
#filtering = false
end
end
class FilterTest
extend Filter
before_filter :prepare_logs
def baz
puts "#{#msg_prefix} message goes here"
end
def prepare_logs name
#msg_prefix = "#{self.class}::#{name}"
end
end
ft = FilterTest.new
ft.baz
By using __method__ like you were in create_prefix, you'll get the name of the filter method, not the original method, so you have to pass the method name in. There might be other solutions to make that a bit cleaner.
You can use ActiveModel::Callbacks to get before_filter-like behaviour in plain Ruby classes (though perhaps in your case it's overkill for just executing one line):
require 'active_model'
class FOO
extend ActiveModel::Callbacks
define_model_callbacks :baz, only: :before
before_baz :create_prefix
def initialize
end
def bar
run_callbacks :baz do
... some code ...
#logeer = "#{#msg_prefix} msg ..."
end
end
def bar2
run_callbacks :baz do
... some code 2 ...
#logeer = "#{#msg_prefix} msg2 ..."
end
end
private
def create_prefix
#msg_prefix = "#{self.class}::#{__method__}"
end
end
I have a list of names and values I'm trying to read in and turn into classes so I'm using Class.new.
The end result I want is a number of classes that work as if defined like:
module MyMod
class AA < Base
def self.value
value1
end
end
class AB < Base
def self.value
value2
end
end
...
end
My current code looks like:
name = 'AA'
value = 'test'
MyMod.const_set name, Class.new(Base) do
???
end
Setting the name works great, but haven't figured out what I need in the block for get value in. Calling def doesn't work because the closure for value gets lost.
I have managed to get things working with:
temp = const_set name, Class.new(Base)
temp.define_singleton_method(:value) { value }
However, it seems like there should be a way to do it with the block of Class.new. Also, I'm really not sure define_singleton_method is actually putting the method in the right place. It works in my tests, but I'm not sure if the method is actually where I think it is or somewhere else up the call chain. I've tried various combinations of class_variable_set, attr_reader, class_eval, instance_eval, and others, but it got to a point where it was just guess and check. I think I still haven't quite wrapped my head around metaprogramming :-/
if i correctly understood your question, this should work for you:
class Base
end
class AA < Base
name = :Blah
klass = self.const_set name, Class.new(Base)
class << klass
def value
__method__
end
end
end
p AA::Blah.value
#=> :value
UPDATE: seems you want it defined in the block:
class Base
end
class AA < Base
name = :Blah
klass = Class.new(Base) do
class << self
def value
__method__
end
end
end
self.const_set name, klass
end
p AA::Blah.value
you trying this:
const_set name, Class.new(Base) do
...
end
it does not work cause the block is referring to const_set rather than to Class.new
If you prefer define_singleton_method over class << self:
class Base
end
class AA < Base
name = :Blah
klass = Class.new(Base) do
self.define_singleton_method :value do
__method__
end
end
self.const_set name, klass
end
And finally if you really want to define them at once, use brackets instead of do...end:
class Base
end
class AA < Base
name = :Blah
self.const_set name, Class.new(Base) {
self.define_singleton_method :value do
__method__
end
}
end
Here is a working demo