I would like to define an object in a shared libary,
type Common struct {
field_a string
custom interface{}
}
where custom is expected to hold additional fields that the user of this common object might define in their file, e.g.,
// module-1
type Mod1Customs struct {
abc string
}
From here, I would like to be able to set Common.custom to Mod1Customs so that I can access both field_a and abc in the same way from within module-1. I would like to do the same thing for other modules that may define an entirely different struct to assign to custom though.
The general idea is to create an object of pre-defined defaults and allowing a bucket of sorts for the users of the object to add their own custom fields.
Is this possible?
What you seem to be looking for is embedding:
type Common struct {
FieldA string
}
type Mod1Customs struct {
Common
Abc string
}
Then Mod1Customs gets access to all of Common fields directly:
c := Mod1Customs{}
fmt.Println(c.FieldA)
fmt.Println(c.Abc)
See Embedding in Effective Go for more details.
If you have some functions that deal with Common fields (no matter what the struct), then you would implement that with an interface that declares the fields you need. Mod1Customs would automatically conform to that interface.
Related
I have below code try to assign embed struct to its parent struct. There are two set of structure: Guider is the parent struct, DataBlock extends from it. The method func Put(x Guider) accept a parameter with type Guider. It works when I pass a DataBlock variable.
However, the other case is Mock extends from zerolog.Event, but it fails to pass the parameter on the method Test(e zerolog.Event)
I got the following error:
cannot use m (variable of type Mock) as type zerolog.Event in argument to Test
Why are these two cases works differently? How can I make them both work?
package main
import (
"fmt"
"github.com/rs/zerolog"
)
type Guider interface {
Guid() string
}
type FSEntity struct {
guid string
}
func (e FSEntity) Guid() string {
return e.guid
}
func Put(x Guider) {
fmt.Printf("%+v\n", x)
}
type Mock struct {
zerolog.Event
}
func Test(e zerolog.Event) {
}
//Child struct:
type DataBlock struct {
FSEntity
data []byte
}
func main() {
myVar := DataBlock{}
myVar.guid = "test"
myVar.data = []byte("moar test")
Put(myVar) // it works
m := Mock{}
Test(m) // it doesn't work. cannot use m (variable of type Mock) as type zerolog.Event in argument to Test
}
First, a couple of definitions:
Polymorphism
Polymorphism is the provision of a single interface to entities of different types or the use of a single symbol to represent multiple different types.
Subtyping
Subtyping (also subtype polymorphism or inclusion polymorphism) is a form of type polymorphism in which a subtype is a datatype that is related to another datatype (the supertype) by some notion of substitutability, meaning that program elements, typically subroutines or functions, written to operate on elements of the supertype can also operate on elements of the subtype
Inheritance
In object-oriented programming, inheritance is the mechanism of basing an object or class upon another object (prototype-based inheritance) or class (class-based inheritance), retaining similar implementation.
Object composition
Object composition and object aggregation are closely related ways to combine objects or data types into more complex ones.
Golang follows composition over inheritance principle, e.g. it doesn't support inheritance. So when you're saying
Mock extends from zerolog.Event
you actually mean that Mock includes zerolog.Event struct.
The way Golang implements polymorphism is interface. All types that implement some interface can be used in its place. It's what you see when use Guider.
However, it doesn't work for simple structs. zerolog.Event is a struct inside Mock.
So, normally, Test function should accept some interface as a parameter, and both mock and real event should implement this interface. However, it looks like zerolog doesn't provide interface for Event. So instead you should access the Event field of you struct. Example
Put(myVar) is legal because myVar is a DataBlock which contains (not inherits from and not implements) an FSEntity which in turn implements the Guider interface.
Since Put accepts a Guider, the reference to myVar is compatible, by virtue of the anonymous FSEntity field it contains which implements Guider. The implementation of Guider on FSEntity is (in effect) elevated to the containing struct (providing a means of delegating interfaces). This only occurs if the contained field is anonymous.
But in the case of Test(m), the function accepts a zerolog.Event which is a struct type, not an interface. As such, there is no "delegation" possible. Test() must be passed a zerolog.Event and in this scenario, this requires that you use the type name of the anonymous field:
Type(m.Event)
Some bonus info:
If DataBlock contained two anonymous fields which both implemented Guider then implicit delegation/elevation cannot take place; golang does not know which of the contained implementations should be delegated to/elevated (if any). In that scenario you must again use the name of the field that you wish to pass to the Put() function:
// given...
type Foo string
func (f Foo) Guid() string {
return string(f)
}
// and...
type DataBlock struct {
FSEntity
Foo
data []byte
}
// then...
Put(myVar) // is now illegal
// and must instead use either/or:
Put(myVar.FSEntity)
Put(myVar.Foo)
Whether implicit or explicit, the crucial distinction is that it is a field of the DataBlock (myVar) that is passed to Put(), not myVar itself.
If you want to pass the DataBlock to Put(), using a Guider interface, then DataBlock must itself implement the Guider interface.
Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not familiar with zerolog package.
Your Guider is an interface, which might have any underlying type as long as Guid() method is satisfied. I assume this is happening through DataBlock containing FSEntity, which itself implements Guid() method, therefore satisfies MIGHT the interface.
On the other hand, I don't know what methods should be implemented to satisfy zerolog.Event or if it's even an interface, or a struct straight up. If it's an interface, you might need to implement it's required methods to be able to use DataBlock as zerolog.Event type. You might want/need to dig into that direction for some very specific answers.
Why we don't call person field as embedded?
“type user struct {
name string
email string
}
type admin struct {
person user // NOT Embedding
level string
}”
But in other cases like below we call it embedded:
“type user struct {
name string
email string
}
type admin struct {
user // Value Semantic Embedding
level string
}”
What I think is that person is also embedded like value/pointer semantic embedding. What I'm missing here?
Because that's how the Go language specification defines it:
A field declared with a type but no explicit field name is called an embedded field.
I can see how the term "embedded" would be confusing. After all, named and unnamed fields end up with the same memory layout, "embedded" into the parent struct. "Anonymous field" might have been a better name for it, but that's not the name that the Go language designers chose.
With the first code you can't treat an admin object as a user object, like using member access or type assertion. This also affects how an embedding struct satisfies interfaces.
For example, the following code works with proper embedding, but not a simple member struct:
var a admin
a.name = "asdfg"
u := a.(user)
I have database and JSON models which use struct field annotation for various purposes, namely specifying enumerations, which values are acceptable for validations, etc.
A database model example:
type QRCode struct {
Algorithm string `json:"algorithm" gorm:"type:enum('hmac-sha3-256-v1')" validate:"oneof=hmac-sha3-256-v1"`
PublicCode []byte `json:"token" gorm:"size:32" validate:"len=32"`
UserType string `json:"user_type" gorm:"type:enum('admin','member')" validate:"one_of=admin member"`
gorm.Model
}
So in this case, there are a few different constants:
public key size, which I have in constants.QRCodePublicCodeLength
algorithm, which I have in constants.QRCodeAlgorithmV1
user type, which I have in constants.UserTypeAdmin and constants.UserTypeMember
It would be very nice to be able to embed these constants in the field tags so that there is truly one source of truth for everything, but I don't know if this is possible in Go.
Can I use constants in struct field tag definitions?
Can I use constants in struct field tag definitions?
No, this is not possible.
I have two structs, whose types are as follows:
type UserStruct struct {
UserID string `bson:"user_id" json:"user_id"`
Address string `bson:"address" json:"address"`
Email string `bson:"email" json:"email"`
CreatedAt time.Time `bson:"created_at" json:"created_at"`
PhoneNumber string `bson:"phone_number" json:"phone_number"`
PanCard string `bson:"pancard" json:"pancard"`
Details map[string]string `json:"details"`
}
type SecretsStruct struct {
UserID string `r:"user_id" json:"user_id"`
Secrets []string `r:"secrets" json:secrets`
Address string `r:"address" json:"address"`
Email string `r:"email"json:"email"`
CreatedAt time.Time `r:"created_at"json:"created_at"`
PhoneNumber string `r:"phone_number" json:"phone_number"`
PanCard string `r:"pancard" json:"pancard"`
}
I already have an instance of UserStruct. I want to copy the fields common to both structs from UserStruct to a new instance of SecretStruct, without using reflection.
Go is a statically typed language (and is not Python). If you want to copy fields between the structs, you must either cause code to be supplied at compile time which knows how to do this, or use the reflect library to perform the operation at runtime.
Note that I said "cause code to be supplied at compile time" because you don't have to explicitly write that code. You could use code generation to produce the copy code from the struct definitions, or from a higher-level definition (e.g. XML) which generates both the struct definition and the copying code.
However, good Go programmers prefer clear code over clever solutions. If this is a single localized requirement, writing a code generator to avoid "boilerplate" code is almost certainly overkill; its implementation will take longer than the code to copy the structs, and the associated complexity will introduce a risk of more bugs. Similarly, reflect-based solutions are complicated, not clear, and only recommended in cases where you require a generic or extensible solution, and where this cannot be fulfilled at compile time.
I recommend simply write the copying code, and add appropriate comments to the struct definitions and copy methods to ensure future maintainers are aware of their obligation to maintain the copy methods.
Example
// Define your types - bodies elided for brevity
// NOTE TO MAINTAINERS: if editing the fields in these structs, ensure
// the methods defined in source file <filename>.go are updated to
// ensure common fields are copied between structs on instantiation.
type UserStruct struct { ... }
type SecretStruct struct { ... }
// NewSecretStructFromUserStruct populates and returns a SecretStruct
// from the elements common to the two types. This method must be
// updated if the set of fields common to both structs is changed in
// future.
func NewSecretStructFromUserStruct(us *UserStruct) *SecretStruct {
// You should take care to deep copy where necessary,
// e.g. for any maps shared between the structs (not
// currently the case).
ss := new(SecretStruct)
ss.UserID = us.UserID
ss.Address = us.Address
ss.Email = us.Email
ss.CreatedAt = us.CreatedAt
ss.PhoneNumber = us.PhoneNumber
ss.PanCard = us.PanCard
return ss
}
// You may also consider this function to be better suited as
// a receiver method on UserStruct.
I'm developing an application where data is stored in mongodb. There are several collections and of course all of them have some common fields (like Id, creation date, etc) and methods (for example Insert). In my vision, I need to create base model struct with needed fields and methods, and then embed this struct into my models. Unfortunately, this doesn't work because method defined for base model doesn't see child fields.
I don't know how to explain further. Here is code in playground:
https://play.golang.org/p/_x-B78g4TV
It uses json instead of mgo, but idea is still the same.
I want the output to be:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42, "foo": "Some value for foo", "bar": "Here we set some value for bar"}
Not:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42}
Writing that insert method for each my model seems to be against DRY, so what is correct/idiomatic way to achieve this in Go?
This is not possible, for details see my answer: Can embedded struct method have knowledge of parent/child?
You may do 2 things:
1. Abandon method and make it a helper / utility function
The idea is to make Insert() detached from BaseModel and make it a simple function, and you pass the document to it which you want to save.
I personally prefer this option, as it requires less hassle and maintenance. It could look like this:
func Insert(doc interface{}) {
j, _ := json.Marshal(doc)
fmt.Println(string(j))
}
You also had a "typo" in the tags:
type MyModel struct {
*BaseModel
Foo string `json:"foo"`
Bar string `json:"bar"`
}
Using it:
Insert(m)
Output (try it on the Go Playground):
{"_id":42,"foo":"Some value for foo","bar":"Here we set some value for bar"}
2. Pass the (pointer to) the wrapper to the BaseModel
In this approach, you have to pass a pointer to the embedder struct so the BaseModel.Insert() method will have a pointer to it, and may use that to save / marshal. This is basically manually maintaining a "reference" to the struct that embeds us and is being saved/marshalled.
This is how it could look like:
type BaseModel struct {
Id int `json:"_id"`
collectionName string
wrapper interface{}
}
And then in the Insert() method save the wrapper:
func (m *BaseModel) Insert() {
fmt.Printf("Saving to '%v'\n", m.collectionName)
j, _ := json.Marshal(m.wrapper)
fmt.Println(string(j))
}
Creation is slightly more complex:
func NewMyModel() *MyModel {
mm := &MyModel{
Foo: "Some value for foo",
}
mm.BaseModel = NewBaseModel("my_model_collection", mm)
return mm
}
But output is as you wish:
Saving to 'my_model_collection'
{"_id":42,"foo":"Some value for foo","bar":"Here we set some value for bar"}
Try it on the Go Playground.
In Golang, you can't override a parent method, because that's not how polymorphism works. The Insert method will apply on the BaseModel member, and not on MyModel.
Also, you're trying to use mgo in an improper way. If you want to insert documents in collections, then you already have an Insert method for a Collection struct which works on interface{} types (same as json.Marshal).
Of course, you can have a BaseModel that will contain fields shared by all of your models. In fact, GORM uses a similar approach and provides a Model struct to be included in every child model.
Well known problem ;o) Member variables (like collectionName) which name starts with lower letter are not visible from other packages (like json). Therefore change struct to:
type BaseModel struct {
Id int `json:"_id"`
CollectionName string `json:"collectionName"`
}
and world will be better place to live in.