I have two different interfaces (from two different packages) that I want to implement. But they conflict, like this:
type InterfaceA interface {
Init()
}
type InterfaceB interface {
Init(name string)
}
type Implementer struct {} // Wants to implement A and B
func (i Implementer) Init() {}
func (i Implementer) Init(name string) {} // Compiler complains
It says "Method redeclared". How can one struct implement both interfaces?
As already answered, this is not possible since Golang does not (and probably will not) support method overloading.
Look at Golang FAQ:
Experience with other languages told us that having a variety of methods with the same name but different signatures was occasionally useful but that it could also be confusing and fragile in practice. Matching only by name and requiring consistency in the types was a major simplifying decision in Go's type system.
It is not possible.
In go you must have a single method signature.
You should rename one method.
The method signatures must match. If you want dependency injection I would recommend the functional option pattern. Functional options are functions that return other functions that are called in a loop in the constructor. Here is an example of how to use functional options and the basics of interfaces in go.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"strconv"
)
type SomeData struct {
data string
}
// SomeData and SomeOtherData both implement SomeInterface and SomeOtherInterface
// SomeInterface and SomeOtherInterface both implement each other.
type SomeInterface interface {
String() string
Set(data string)
}
func (s *SomeData)String() string {
return s.data
}
func (s *SomeData)Set(data string) {
s.data = data
}
// SetDataOption is a functional option that can be used to inject a constructor dep
func SetDataOption(data string) func(*SomeData) {
return func(s *SomeData) {
s.Set(data)
}
}
// NewSomeData is the constructor; it takes in 0 to many functional options and calls each one in a loop.
func NewSomeData(options ...func(s *SomeData)) SomeInterface {
s := new(SomeData)
for _, o := range options {
o(s)
}
return s
}
//********************
type SomeOtherData struct {
data string
i int
}
type SomeOtherInterface interface {
String() string
Set(data string)
}
func (s *SomeOtherData)String() string {
return s.data + " " + strconv.Itoa(s.i)
}
func (s *SomeOtherData)Set(data string) {
s.data = data
}
func SetOtherDataOption(data string) func(*SomeOtherData) {
return func(s *SomeOtherData) {
s.Set(data)
}
}
func SetOtherIntOption(i int) func(*SomeOtherData) {
return func(s *SomeOtherData) {
s.i = i
}
}
// NewSomeOther data works just like NewSomeData only in this case, there are more options to choose from
// you can use none or any of them.
func NewSomeOtherData(options ...func(s *SomeOtherData)) SomeOtherInterface {
s := new(SomeOtherData)
for _, o := range options {
o(s)
}
return s
}
//*********************************
// HandleData accepts an interface
// Regardless of which underlying struct is in the interface, this function will handle
// either by calling the methods on the underlying struct.
func HandleData(si SomeInterface) {
fmt.Println(si) // fmt.Println calls the String() method of your struct if it has one using the Stringer interface
}
func main() {
someData := NewSomeData(SetDataOption("Optional constructor dep"))
someOtherData := NewSomeOtherData(SetOtherDataOption("Other optional constructor dep"), SetOtherIntOption(42))
HandleData(someData) // calls SomeData.String()
HandleData(someOtherData) // calls SomeOtherData.String()
someOtherData = someData // assign the first interface to the second, this works because they both implement each other.
HandleData(someOtherData) // calls SomeData.String() because there is a SomeData in the someOtherData variable.
}
I'm working on a project that would require some level of abstraction on some data and I would like to keep the packages that use the data as independent as possible so I can swap things out in the future.
Here are 2 possible ways that I thought of, one is having a common data interface and have all the places import it. The other is to have each package define its own interfaces and do a type assertion.
Which is the most Go/general way of doing it?
// Importing interface
// src/model
type IData interface {
myint() int
}
// src/dataextractor
import src/model
type DataExtractor struct {
foo() IData
}
// src/service
import src/model
type ServiceDataExtractor interface {
foo() IData
}
type Service struct {
extractor ServiceDataExtractor
}
func (s Service) serve() {
v = s.extractor.foo()
// do stuff with v
}
vs
// type assertion
// src/dataextractor
type DataExtractorData struct{}
func (d DataExtractorData) myint()int {}
type DataExtractor struct {
foo() interface{} {
reutrn DataExtractorData{}
}
}
// src/service
type ServiceData interface {
myint() int
}
type ServiceDataExtractor interface {
foo() interface{}
}
type Service struct {
extractor ServiceDataExtractor
}
func (s Service) serve() {
data := s.extractor.foo()
v, ok := data.(ServiceData)
// do stuff with v
}
Here's the simple rules to keep in mind. An interface type should be declared in the package that wants to receive that interface type. To satisfy an interface, you don't have to import it. All you need to do is declare the methods as are specified by the interface.
When do you use interfaces? Typically, when you have a field, or parameter, that you want to be able to accept multiple data types, and you can do all you need to do with it by calling methods. How do you determine what goes in the interface? You simply ask yourself: "What methods would I need to call on this value to make use of it?"
The only seemingly meaningful method in your example is myint() int, and the only place it seems you intend to use it is in Service.
type Service struct {
extractor interface {
myint() int
}
}
func (s Service) serve() {
s.extractor.myint()
}
Golang docs provide a clear guidance on how to name single-method interface (by appending "-er"). But what is the best practice to name a multi-method interface that has only a single struct implementing it?
In C# the interface would have "I" prefix, in Java, the class will have "Impl" suffix. Are there similar guidelines for Golang?
The point of having an interface here is to be able to mock it for unit-testing of components that depend on it.
Here is a specific example of UserManager interface. It is going to be consumed by a web api controller that will translate HTTP requests into method calls on this interface. This web api controller will use most of the methods of UserManager.
type UserManager interface { // Should it be UserManagerInterface ?
GetUser(id int) User
CreateUser(user User)
DeleteUser(id int)
ResetPassword(id int, newPassword string)
VerifyEmail(id int)
}
type UserManagerImpl struct { // -Impl, or -Struct, or something else?
}
Coming from Java/C# to Go requires a paradigm shift.
Because they are implemented implicitly, interfaces are defined where they're consumed, not where they're implemented.
Because they're implemented implicitly, smaller interfaces are preferred over larger interfaces, hence the focus on single-method "Verber" interfaces. If you have a function that needs to read bytes, it can take a io.Reader, and the function can be supplied any type that has that method (regardless what other methods it has). You probably don't have a function that calls all 5 of the methods listed in your interface (if so, that function is probably doing too much).
If you feel like naming a struct and an interface the same thing and therefore need some kind of prefix/suffix, you're probably thinking about it the wrong way and might need to reconsider your design.
DBAL is one area where there is sometimes a real case for a larger interface (though it should probably still be composed of smaller interfaces). But in this case, "Impl" doesn't tell you anything - Java and C# love to have pointless interfaces, Go does not. If you'll only ever have one implementation, the interface is probably useless.
If you will have multiple implementations, the differences between them should guide your naming. For example, you might have a PostgresUserManager, a MongoUserManager, and a MockUserManager.
Do you really need UserManagerImpl struct be public? It's kinda common to have a public interface and the corresponding private implementation. Check this and this.
type Store interface {
RunRoot() string
GraphRoot() string
...
}
type store struct {
...
}
func New() Store {
return &store{}
}
func (s *store) RunRoot() string {
return s.runRoot
}
func (s *store) GraphRoot() string {
return s.graphRoot
}
I mean, if you came up with a decent name for the interface, you still can use it for the implementation. But in general, it's good to call things reflecting what they really are regardless of the best practices of the given language. Projects are unique, it's barely possible to make a list of best practices suitable for all the use cases of the language.
The same as #Ivan Velichko I also used to make Interfaces public and struct private like so:
type Service interface {
Do() error
}
type service struct {
dependency dependencies.Dependency
}
func (s *service) Do() error {
return s.depedency.Do()
}
func NewService() Service {
return &service{}
}
However if for some reasons you have to make structs or their properties public and you don't want to write a lot of getters or setters consider examples below:
Make interface name more specific to actions it does
According this articles:
Effective Go
Is there a naming convention for interface + struct pairs?
You should:
By convention, one-method interfaces are named by the method name plus an -er suffix or similar modification to construct an agent noun: Reader, Writer, Formatter, CloseNotifier etc.
type ServiceWorker interface {
HandleMessages() error
}
type Service struct {
dependency dependencies.Dependency
}
func (s *service) HandleMessages() error {
return s.depedency.Do()
}
func NewServiceWorker() Service {
return &service{
Property: "property"
}
}
Create function for getting/modifying struct
type Service interface {
Do() error
Service() *service // this will handle getting and modifying your struct
}
type service struct {
dependency dependencies.Dependency
Property string // property to want to expose
}
func (s *service) Do() error {
return s.depedency.Do()
}
func (s *service) Service() *service {
return s
}
func NewService() Service {
return &service{
Property: "property"
}
}
//...
func main() {
s := pkg.NewService()
fmt.Println("p1:", s.Service().Property) // p1: property
s.Service().Property = "second"
fmt.Println("p2:", s.Service().Property) // p2: second
}
Define getters and setters
Define getters and setters in more Java/C# way:
type Service interface {
Do() error
Get() service
Set() *service
}
type service struct {
dependency dependencies.Dependency
Property string // property to want to expose
}
func (s *service) Do() error {
return s.depedency.Do()
}
func (s service) Get() service {
return s
}
func (s *service) Set() *service {
return s
}
func NewService() Service {
return &service{
Property: "property"
}
}
type BizError struct {
Code string
Mesg string
}
type ApiReply struct {
Err BizError
}
type GetDataReply struct {
Data interface{}
ApiReply
}
with the above definition, I want to do the following:
func Func1(data interface{}) {
switch data.(type) {
case ApiReply:
data.(ApiReply).Err.Code = "0"
}
}
The key problem is that in Func1, the type-switch does not know any new types that embeds ApiReply, it is a "generic" handler. While the data
passed to it is actually ApiReply's "child class". Apparently, in Go, you cannot assert a GetDataReply type to an ApiReply.
How can I handle this case so that in Func1 I do not need to have all possible structs that may embed ApiReply explicitly declared?
You're trying to implement an inheritance style system in go. Struct embedding is not inheritance and should not be thought of or treated as such. This is an anti-pattern in go and generally does not work as you would desire or expect.
Instead, the more idiomatic approach to this would be to define an interface (or a couple interfaces) and have your response types implement the necessary methods to conform.
type ApiReply interface {
Status() (string, string)
Body() (io.Reader, error)
}
type BizError struct {
Code string
Mesg string
}
func (b BizError) Status() (string, string) {
return b.Code, b.Mesg
}
func (b BizError) Body() (io.Reader, error) {
return nil, errors.New("BizError never contains a body")
}
You would then implement ApiReply on your other response type structs. I'm of course guessing at what you actually need here but hopefully this gets the point across.
And if you find you must, you can now do a type switch against the ApiReply instance you receive and special case any underlying types if absolutely necessary.
sort package:
type Interface interface {
Len() int
Less(i, j int) bool
Swap(i, j int)
}
...
type reverse struct {
Interface
}
What is the meaning of anonymous interface Interface in struct reverse?
In this way reverse implements the sort.Interface and we can override a specific method
without having to define all the others
type reverse struct {
// This embedded Interface permits Reverse to use the methods of
// another Interface implementation.
Interface
}
Notice how here it swaps (j,i) instead of (i,j) and also this is the only method declared for the struct reverse even if reverse implement sort.Interface
// Less returns the opposite of the embedded implementation's Less method.
func (r reverse) Less(i, j int) bool {
return r.Interface.Less(j, i)
}
Whatever struct is passed inside this method we convert it to a new reverse struct.
// Reverse returns the reverse order for data.
func Reverse(data Interface) Interface {
return &reverse{data}
}
The real value comes if you think what would you have to do if this approach was not possible.
Add another Reverse method to the sort.Interface ?
Create another ReverseInterface ?
... ?
Any of this change would require many many more lines of code across thousands of packages that want to use the standard reverse functionality.
Ok, the accepted answer helped me understand, but I decided to post an explanation which I think suits better my way of thinking.
The "Effective Go" has example of interfaces having embedded other interfaces:
// ReadWriter is the interface that combines the Reader and Writer interfaces.
type ReadWriter interface {
Reader
Writer
}
and a struct having embedded other structs:
// ReadWriter stores pointers to a Reader and a Writer.
// It implements io.ReadWriter.
type ReadWriter struct {
*Reader // *bufio.Reader
*Writer // *bufio.Writer
}
But there is no mention of a struct having embedded an interface. I was confused seeing this in sort package:
type Interface interface {
Len() int
Less(i, j int) bool
Swap(i, j int)
}
...
type reverse struct {
Interface
}
But the idea is simple. It's almost the same as:
type reverse struct {
IntSlice // IntSlice struct attaches the methods of Interface to []int, sorting in increasing order
}
methods of IntSlice being promoted to reverse.
And this:
type reverse struct {
Interface
}
means that sort.reverse can embed any struct that implements interface sort.Interface and whatever methods that interface has, they will be promoted to reverse.
sort.Interface has method Less(i, j int) bool which now can be overridden:
// Less returns the opposite of the embedded implementation's Less method.
func (r reverse) Less(i, j int) bool {
return r.Interface.Less(j, i)
}
My confusion in understanding
type reverse struct {
Interface
}
was that I thought that a struct always has fixed structure, i.e. fixed number of fields of fixed types.
But the following proves me wrong:
package main
import "fmt"
// some interface
type Stringer interface {
String() string
}
// a struct that implements Stringer interface
type Struct1 struct {
field1 string
}
func (s Struct1) String() string {
return s.field1
}
// another struct that implements Stringer interface, but has a different set of fields
type Struct2 struct {
field1 []string
dummy bool
}
func (s Struct2) String() string {
return fmt.Sprintf("%v, %v", s.field1, s.dummy)
}
// container that can embedd any struct which implements Stringer interface
type StringerContainer struct {
Stringer
}
func main() {
// the following prints: This is Struct1
fmt.Println(StringerContainer{Struct1{"This is Struct1"}})
// the following prints: [This is Struct1], true
fmt.Println(StringerContainer{Struct2{[]string{"This", "is", "Struct1"}, true}})
// the following does not compile:
// cannot use "This is a type that does not implement Stringer" (type string)
// as type Stringer in field value:
// string does not implement Stringer (missing String method)
fmt.Println(StringerContainer{"This is a type that does not implement Stringer"})
}
The statement
type reverse struct {
Interface
}
enables you to initialize reverse with everything that implements the interface Interface. Example:
&reverse{sort.Intslice([]int{1,2,3})}
This way, all methods implemented by the embedded Interface value get populated to the outside while you are still able to override some of them in reverse, for example Less to reverse the sorting.
This is what actually happens when you use sort.Reverse. You can read about embedding in the struct section of the spec.
I will give my explanation too. The sort package defines an unexported type reverse, which is a struct, that embeds Interface.
type reverse struct {
// This embedded Interface permits Reverse to use the methods of
// another Interface implementation.
Interface
}
This permits Reverse to use the methods of another Interface implementation. This is the so called composition, which is a powerful feature of Go.
The Less method for reverse calls the Less method of the embedded Interface value, but with the indices flipped, reversing the order of the sort results.
// Less returns the opposite of the embedded implementation's Less method.
func (r reverse) Less(i, j int) bool {
return r.Interface.Less(j, i)
}
Len and Swap the other two methods of reverse, are implicitly provided by the original Interface value because it is an embedded field. The exported Reverse function returns an instance of the reverse type that contains the original Interface value.
// Reverse returns the reverse order for data.
func Reverse(data Interface) Interface {
return &reverse{data}
}
I find this feature very helpful when writing mocks in tests.
Here is such an example:
package main_test
import (
"fmt"
"testing"
)
// Item represents the entity retrieved from the store
// It's not relevant in this example
type Item struct {
First, Last string
}
// Store abstracts the DB store
type Store interface {
Create(string, string) (*Item, error)
GetByID(string) (*Item, error)
Update(*Item) error
HealthCheck() error
Close() error
}
// this is a mock implementing Store interface
type storeMock struct {
Store
// healthy is false by default
healthy bool
}
// HealthCheck is mocked function
func (s *storeMock) HealthCheck() error {
if !s.healthy {
return fmt.Errorf("mock error")
}
return nil
}
// IsHealthy is the tested function
func IsHealthy(s Store) bool {
return s.HealthCheck() == nil
}
func TestIsHealthy(t *testing.T) {
mock := &storeMock{}
if IsHealthy(mock) {
t.Errorf("IsHealthy should return false")
}
mock = &storeMock{healthy: true}
if !IsHealthy(mock) {
t.Errorf("IsHealthy should return true")
}
}
By using:
type storeMock struct {
Store
...
}
One doesn't need to mock all Store methods. Only HealthCheck can be mocked, since only this method is used in the TestIsHealthy test.
Below the result of the test command:
$ go test -run '^TestIsHealthy$' ./main_test.go
ok command-line-arguments 0.003s
A real world example of this use case one can find when testing the AWS SDK.
To make it even more obvious, here is the ugly alternative - the minimum one needs to implement to satisfy the Store interface:
type storeMock struct {
healthy bool
}
func (s *storeMock) Create(a, b string) (i *Item, err error) {
return
}
func (s *storeMock) GetByID(a string) (i *Item, err error) {
return
}
func (s *storeMock) Update(i *Item) (err error) {
return
}
// HealthCheck is mocked function
func (s *storeMock) HealthCheck() error {
if !s.healthy {
return fmt.Errorf("mock error")
}
return nil
}
func (s *storeMock) Close() (err error) {
return
}
Embedding interfaces in a struct allows for partially "overriding" methods from the embedded interfaces. This, in turn, allows for delegation from the embedding struct to the embedded interface implementation.
The following example is taken from this blog post.
Suppose we want to have a socket connection with some additional functionality, like counting the total number of bytes read from it. We can define the following struct:
type StatsConn struct {
net.Conn
BytesRead uint64
}
StatsConn now implements the net.Conn interface and can be used anywhere a net.Conn is expected. When a StatsConn is initialized with a proper value implementing net.Conn for the embedded field, it "inherits" all the methods of that value; the key insight is, though, that we can intercept any method we wish, leaving all the others intact. For our purpose in this example, we'd like to intercept the Read method and record the number of bytes read:
func (sc *StatsConn) Read(p []byte) (int, error) {
n, err := sc.Conn.Read(p)
sc.BytesRead += uint64(n)
return n, err
}
To users of StatsConn, this change is transparent; we can still call Read on it and it will do what we expect (due to delegating to sc.Conn.Read), but it will also do additional bookkeeping.
It's critical to initialize a StatsConn properly, otherwise the field retains its default value nil causing a runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference; for example:
conn, err := net.Dial("tcp", u.Host+":80")
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
sconn := &StatsConn{conn, 0}
Here net.Dial returns a value that implements net.Conn, so we can use that to initialize the embedded field of StatsConn.
We can now pass our sconn to any function that expects a net.Conn argument, e.g:
resp, err := ioutil.ReadAll(sconn)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
And later we can access its BytesRead field to get the total.
This is an example of wrapping an interface. We created a new type that implements an existing interface, but reused an embedded value to implement most of the functionality. We could implement this without embedding by having an explicit conn field like this:
type StatsConn struct {
conn net.Conn
BytesRead uint64
}
And then writing forwarding methods for each method in the net.Conn interface, e.g.:
func (sc *StatsConn) Close() error {
return sc.conn.Close()
}
However, the net.Conn interface has many methods. Writing forwarding methods for all of them is tedious and unnecessary. Embedding the interface gives us all these forwarding methods for free, and we can override just the ones we need.
I will try another, low level approach to this.
Given the reverse struct:
type reverse struct {
Interface
}
This beside others means, that reverse struct has a field reverse.Interface, and as a struct fields, it can be nil or have value of type Interface.
If it is not nil, then the fields from the Interface are promoted to the "root" = reverse struct. It might be eclipsed by fields defined directly on the reverse struct, but that is not our case.
When You do something like:
foo := reverse{}, you can println it via fmt.Printf("%+v", foo) and got
{Interface:<nil>}
When you do the
foo := reverse{someInterfaceInstance}
It is equivalent of:
foo := reverse{Interface: someInterfaceInstance}
It feels to me like You declare expectation, that implementation of Interface API should by injected into your struct reverse in runtime. And this api will be then promoted to the root of struct reverse.
At the same time, this still allow inconsistency, where You have reverse struct instance with reverse.Interface = < Nil>, You compile it and get the panic on runtime.
When we look back to the specifically example of the reverse in OP, I can see it as a pattern, how you can replace/extend behaviour of some instance / implementation kind of in runtime contrary to working with types more like in compile time when You do embedding of structs instead of interfaces.
Still, it confuses me a lot. Especially the state where the Interface is Nil :(.