Monkey-patching methods only inside my own code (by automatically using refinements?) - ruby

In my Ruby (on Rails) project, I’d like to forbid or restrict the usage of some methods provided by the standard library. Examples: I’d like to forbid calling Float#to_d because I had a rounding error when someone was using that method on a Float literal. I’d like to restrict String#to_d to work only with fully valid Strings because I had some bug resulting from 'string'.to_d returning 0.0.
Monkey-patching / overriding these methods globally is of course a bad idea. It may break some dependency.
Adding a linter rule that scans the code to not have calls to any #to_d method has the problem that it falsely restricts calling legit methods like Integer#to_d. Of course, all the legit methods could be added to the corresponding classes under a different name. But this requires adding a lot of boilerplace (for the methods) and changing all calls of these methods.
I also considered using refinements. This would be similar to monkey-patching, but apply only to scopes where the refinement is used. However, having to add using statements to every file would be ugly and error-prone. Is it possible to activate a refinement automatically for every file in my project, but not for dependencies?

You can monkeypatch if you're careful about it. I tried to implement it, see if it works. Obviously, you'll take a large performance hit, so I wouldn't recommend it in production :P One could speed it up quite a bit by memoising the tested locations instead of going up the directory tree each time the method is called.
The idea is to move the original method out of the way if defined on the class, then substitute a method that will check whether or not you're calling from your code. I'm using the directory that contains .git directory as your project directory; if you have a vendor directory directly in your project directory, it is exempt, as is everything outside the project directory. If you are in a location that is exempt, just pass things along to either the saved old method or up the inheritance chain; if not, scream foul.
require 'pathname'
PROJECT_CODE = Pathname.new(__dir__).ascend.find { |loc| (loc / '.git').directory? }
VENDOR_CODE = PROJECT_CODE / 'vendor'
class ForbiddenMethodError < StandardError; end
def forbid_method(klass, meth, &block)
case
when klass.instance_methods(false).include?(meth)
old_meth = :"forbid_method_old_#{meth}"
klass.alias_method old_meth, meth
when klass.respond_to?(meth)
old_meth = nil
else
raise ArgumentError, "No such method: #{klass}##{meth}"
end
klass.define_method(meth) do |*args|
if !block || instance_exec(*args, &block)
caller_loc = Pathname.new(caller_locations.first.path).expand_path
caller_loc.ascend do |ancestor|
case ancestor
when PROJECT_CODE
raise ForbiddenMethodError, "#{klass}##{meth}", caller[2..]
when VENDOR_CODE
break
end
end
end
if old_meth
send(old_meth, *args)
else
super(*args)
end
end
end
With this, you can make Float#to_d and (conditionally) String#to_d fail in project code:
require 'bigdecimal/util'
forbid_method(Float, :to_d)
forbid_method(String, :to_d) { !BigDecimal(self) rescue true }
If you pass a block, the function is only forbidden if the block condition is truthy. (The block will get passed all the method's arguments, and will execute with the forbidden method's receiver as self.)

Related

Ruby: understanding data structure

Most of the Factorybot factories are like:
FactoryBot.define do
factory :product do
association :shop
title { 'Green t-shirt' }
price { 10.10 }
end
end
It seems that inside the ":product" block we are building a data structure, but it's not the typical hashmap, the "keys" are not declared through symbols and commas aren't used.
So my question is: what kind of data structure is this? and how it works?
How declaring "association" inside the block doesn't trigger a:
NameError: undefined local variable or method `association'
when this would happen on many other situations. Is there a subject in compsci related to this?
The block is not a data structure, it's code. association and friends are all method calls, probably being intercepted by method_missing. Here's an example using that same technique to build a regular hash:
class BlockHash < Hash
def method_missing(key, value=nil)
if value.nil?
return self[key]
else
self[key] = value
end
end
def initialize(&block)
self.instance_eval(&block)
end
end
With which you can do this:
h = BlockHash.new do
foo 'bar'
baz :zoo
end
h
#=> {:foo=>"bar", :baz=>:zoo}
h.foo
#=> "bar"
h.baz
#=> :zoo
I have not worked with FactoryBot so I'm going to make some assumptions based on other libraries I've worked with. Milage may vary.
The basics:
FactoryBot is a class (Obviously)
define is a static method in FactoryBot (I'm going to assume I still haven't lost you ;) ).
Define takes a block which is pretty standard stuff in ruby.
But here's where things get interesting.
Typically when a block is executed it has a closure relative to where it was declared. This can be changed in most languages but ruby makes it super easy. instance_eval(block) will do the trick. That means you can have access to methods in the block that weren't available outside the block.
factory on line 2 is just such a method. You didn't declare it, but the block it's running in isn't being executed with a standard scope. Instead your block is being immediately passed to FactoryBot which passes it to a inner class named DSL which instance_evals the block so its own factory method will be run.
line 3-5 don't work that way since you can have an arbitrary name there.
ruby has several ways to handle missing methods but the most straightforward is method_missing. method_missing is an overridable hook that any class can define that tells ruby what to do when somebody calls a method that doesn't exist.
Here it's checking to see if it can parse the name as an attribute name and use the parameters or block to define an attribute or declare an association. It sounds more complicated than it is. Typically in this situation I would use define_method, define_singleton_method, instance_variable_set etc... to dynamically create and control the underlying classes.
I hope that helps. You don't need to know this to use the library the developers made a domain specific language so people wouldn't have to think about this stuff, but stay curious and keep growing.

RSpec test method is called on `main` object

Sometimes we call methods on the ruby main objects. For example we call create for FactoryBot and we call _() for I18n.
What's a proper way to test these top level methods got called in RSpec?
For example, I want to test N_ is called, but it would not work because the self in Rspec and self in the file are different.
# spec
describe 'unfound_translations' do
it 'includes dynamic translations' do
expect(self).to receive(:N_)
load '/path/to/unfound_translations.rb')
end
end
# unfound_translations.rb
N_('foo')
However this does not pass.
Ok, I get your problem now. Your main issue is that self in it block is different that self inside unfound_translations.rb. So you're setting expectations on one object and method N_ is called on something completely different.
(Edit: I just realized, when reading the subject of this question again, that you already was aware of it. Sorry for stating the obvious... leaving it so it may be useful to others)
I managed to have a hacky way that is working, here it is:
# missing_translations.rb
N_('foo')
and the spec (I defined a simple module for tests inside it for simplicity):
module N
def N_(what)
puts what
end
end
RSpec.describe 'foo' do
let(:klass) do
Class.new do
extend N
end
end
it do
expect(klass).to receive(:N_)
klass.class_eval do
eval(File.read('missing_translations.rb'))
end
end
end
What it does it's creating an anonymous class that. And evaluating contents of missing_translations.rb inside means that klass is the thing that receives N_ method. So you can set expectations there.
I'm pretty sure you can replace extend N module with whatever module is giving you N_ method and this should work.
It's hacky, but not much effort so maybe good enough until more elegant solution is provided.

In a Ruby module, how do you test if a method exists in the context which use the module?

Some context
I'm playing with Ruby to deepen my knowledge and have fun while at the same time improving my knowledge of Esperanto with a just starting toy project called Ĝue. Basically, the aim is to use Ruby facilities to implement a DSL that matches Esperanto traits that I think interesting in the context of a programming language.
The actual problem
So a first trait I would like to implement is inflection of verbs, using infinitive in method declaration (ending with -i), and jussive (ending with -u) for call to the method.
A first working basic implementation is like that:
module Ĝue
def method_missing(igo, *args, &block)
case igo
when /u$/
celo = igo.to_s.sub(/u$/, 'i').to_s
send(celo)
else
super
end
end
end
And it works. Now the next step is to make it more resilient, because there is no guaranty that celo will exists when the module try to call it. That is, the module should implement the respond_to? method. Thus the question, how do the module know if the context where module was required include the corresponding infinitive method? Even after adding extend self at the beginning of the module, inside of the module methods.include? :testi still return false when tested with the following code, although the testu call works perfectly:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require './teke/ĝue.rb'
include Ĝue
def testi; puts 'testo!' ;end
testu
Note that the test is run directly into the main scope. I don't know if this makes any difference with using a dedicated class scope, I would guess that no, as to the best of my knowledge everything is an object in Ruby.
Found a working solution through In Ruby, how do I check if method "foo=()" is defined?
So in this case, this would be checkable through
eval("defined? #{celo}") == 'method'

RSpec testing of a class which uses a gem object as an instance variable

So I'm pretty new to Rspec and I'm trying to figure out how to write tests for a class that takes an object as a constructor parameter and sets that object to an instance variable. Then it calls that instance variable's object methods in other methods.
Example:
class ClassA
def initialize(string_object, gem_object)
#instance_variable1 = gem_object
#string = string_object
end
def check_validity?(some_arg)
unless #instance_variable1.gemObjectMethod1.gemObjectMethod2(some_arg).empty?
return true
end
false
end
..
..
end
I feel very lost in how to write specifications for this. For one I don't really understand what specifying a constructor actually entails. What I realize is that I'd have to find some way of mocking or stubbing the gem_object I'm getting as argument, but I'm not sure how.
For the next method, what I've tried to this point is:
describe '#check_validity?' do
context 'gets empty list' do
let (:actual) { subject.check_validity?("sample") }
before do
allow(subject).to receive(#instance_variable1.gemObjectMethod1.gemObjectMethod2).with("sample").and_return([])
end
it 'returns false' do
expect(actual).to be false
end
end
end
But this gives me error relating to my constructor saying that it expected 2 arguments but was given 0.
Any help would be much appreciated! Also, I couldn't really find anything on line about specifying constructors with their arguments mocked. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place or maybe missing something obvious as this is my first experience with BDD.
In RSpec, 'receive' is a method that accepts a symbol that represents the name of a method. (It allows you to chain a 'with' method that accepts the expected list of parameters.) To fix the before-block you could do this:
before do
allow(subject.instance_variable_get(:#instance_variable1).gemObjectMethod1).to receive(:gemObjectMethod2).with("sample").and_return([])
end
The sheer ugliness of that, though, suggests that something is wrong. And it is. The code is violating the law of demeter pretty badly and the test is being drawn into it.
As a first attempt to clean it up, you might consider a method that "caches" the results of calling #instance_variable1.gemObjectMethod1. Let's say that that first method returns an enumerable group of widgets. You could change your class to include something like this:
def check_validity(a_string)
widgets.gemObjectMethod2(a_string).empty?
end
private
def widgets
#widgets ||= #instance_variable1.gemObjectMethod1
end
Your class still knows a bit too much about the gem object, but now you have broken it down in such a way that you could refactor how you find widgets -- perhaps a different gem or your own implementation of it. For the purposes of your testing, you can isolate that decision from the test by mocking widgets.
let(:gem_widgets) do
instance_double(GemObjectMethod1ResultClass, gemObjectMethod2: true)
end
before do
allow(subject).to receive(:widgets).and_return(gem_widgets)
allow(gem_widgets).to receive(:gemObjectMethod2).with("sample").
and_return([])
end
it 'should pass with "sample"' do
expect(actual).to eql true
end

Should mixins make assumptions about their including class?

I found examples of a mixin that makes assumptions about what instance variables an including class has. Something like this:
module Fooable
def calculate
#val_one + #val_two
end
end
class Bar
attr_accessor :val_one, :val_two
include Fooable
end
I found arguments for and against whether it's a good practice. The obvious alternative is passing val_one and val_two as parameters, but that doesn't seem as common, and having more heavily parameterized methods could be a downside.
Is there conventional wisdom regarding a mixin's dependence on class state? What are the advantages/disadvantages of reading values from instance variables vs. passing them in as parameters? Alternatively, does the answer change if you start modifying instance variables instead of just reading them?
It is not a problem at all to assume in a module some properties about the class that includes/prepends it. That is usually done. In fact, the Enumerable module assumes that a class that includes/prepends it has a each method, and has many methods that depend on it. Likewise, the Comparable module assumes that the including/prepending class has <=>. I cannot immediately come up with an example of an instance variable, but there is not a crucial difference between methods and instance variables regarding this point; the same should be said about instance variables.
Disadvantage of passing arguments without using instance variable is that your method call will be verbose and less flexible.
Rule of thumb: Mixins should never make any assumptions about the classes/modules they may be included in. However, as it usually goes, any rule has exceptions.
But first, let's talk about the first part. Specifically, accessing (depending on) including class instance variables. If your mixin depends on anything within the including class, then it means that you can not change that "anything" in the parent class with a guarantee that it would not break something. Also, you will have to document that dependency of mixin not only in documentation related to mixin, but also in the documentation of the class/module that includes the mixin. Because, down the road, the requirements may change or someone might see an opportunity in refactoring your class/module code. Obviously, that person will not dig for that class's documentation or know that that specific class/module has a section in your documentation.
Anyhow, by depending on including class internals, not only your mixin made itself dependant, but also ended up making any class/module that includes it a dependant. Which is definitely not a good thing. Because, you can not control who or which class/module has included your mixin, you will never have a confidence to introduce a change. Not having that confidence to change without a fear of breaking anything is project drainer!
The "workaround" may be - "covering it with test". But, consider yourself or someone else maintaining that code in 2 years. Will you remember to cover your new class, that includes the mixin, to make sure it complies with all mixin dependency requirements? I am sure you or the new maintainer will not.
So, from the maintenance or basic OOP principles, your mixin must not depend on any including class/module.
Now, let's talk about that there is alway an exception to the rule bit.
You can make an exception, provided that mixin dependency does not introduce "surprises" to your code. So, it is ok, if the mixin dependencies are well known among your team or they are a convention. Another case could be when the mixin is used internally and you control who uses it (basically, when you are using it within your own project).
The key advantage of OOP in developing maintainable systems was its ability to hide/encapsulate the implementation details. Making your mixin dependant on any class that includes it, is throwing all the years of OOP experience out the window.
I'd say a mixin should not make assumptions about a specific class it is included in, but it's totally fine to make assumptions about a common parent class (respectively its public methods).
Good example: It's fine to call params in a mixin that will be included in controllers.
Or, to be more precise according your example, I'd think something like this would totally be fine:
class Calculation
attr_accesor :operands
end
module SumOperation
def sum
self.operands.sum
end
end
class MyCustomCalculation < Calculation
include SumOperation
end
You should not hesitate, even for a second, to include instance variables in your mixin module when the situation calls for it.
Suppose, for example, you wrote:
class A
def initialize(h)
#h = h
end
def confirm_colour(colour)
#h[:colour] == colour
end
def confirm_size(size)
#h[:size] == size
end
def confirm_all(colour, size)
confirm_colour(colour) && confirm_size(size)
end
end
a = A.new(:colour=>:blue, :size=>:medium, :weight=>10)
a.confirm_all(:blue, :medium)
#=> true
a.confirm_all(:blue, :large)
#=> false
Now suppose someone asks for the weight be checked as well. We could add the method
def confirm_weight(weight)
#h[:weight] == weight
end
and change confirm_all to
def confirm_all(colour, size)
confirm_colour(colour) && confirm_size(size) && confirm_weight(size)
end
but there is a better way: put all the checks in a module.
module Checks
def confirm_colour(g)
#h[:colour] == g[:colour]
end
def confirm_size(g)
#h[:size] == g[:size]
end
def confirm_weight(g)
#h[:weight] == g[:weight]
end
end
Then include the module in A and run through all the checks.
class A
include Checks
def initialize(h)
#h = h
end
def confirm_all(g)
Checks.instance_methods.all? { |m| send(m, g) }
end
end
a = A.new(:colour=>:blue, :size=>:medium, :weight=>10)
a.confirm_all(:colour=>:blue, :size=>:medium, :weight=>10)
#=> true
a.confirm_all(:colour=>:blue, :size=>:large, :weight=>10)
#=> false
This has the advantage that when checks are to be added or removed, only the module is affected; no changes need to be made to the class. This example is admittedly contrived, but it is a short step to real-world situations.
Although it is common to make these assumptions, you may want to consider a different pattern in order to make more composable and testable code: Dependency Injection.
module Fooable
def add(one, two)
one + two
end
end
class Bar
attr_accessor :val_one, :val_two
include Fooable
def calculate
add #val_one, #val_two
end
end
Although it adds an extra layer of indirection, often times it will be worth it because of the potential to use the concern across a larger number of classes, as well as making it easier to test code.

Resources