I'm having this problem which I think it might be a code smell, I have a class that receives an argument in its initialiser and contains one public and several private methods - everything normal. Example:
class Foo
def initialize(a)
#a = a
end
def apply?(examples)
foo_1(examples)
end
private
def foo_1(examples)
foo_2(examples) ? 1 : 2
end
def foo_2(examples)
examples.size > #a
end
end
My problem here, is 'examples' that is received by the public method being carried around over and over the private methods, it doesn't look pretty and it seems like a code smell, what's the best approach here? Make it an instance variable inside the public method?
Thanks
Yes, this may be considered a code smell if the number of private methods accepting examples is bigger than 1-2.
One thing to consider would be to extract a class to represent the rule here.
For example:
class Foo
def initialize(a)
#a = a
end
def apply?(examples)
size_rule_applies?(examples) ? 1 : 2
end
private
def size_rule_applies?(examples)
SizeRule.new(#a, examples).apply?
end
class SizeRule
def initialize(a, examples)
#a = a
#examples = examples
end
def apply?
#examples.size > #a
end
end
end
I wouldn't make the examples an instance variable of the Foo class as there's a risk it would persist in memory between the calls to that object. I've seen bugs like that.
If examples changes dynamically then making it instance variable is not an option. You'll either need to instantiate Foo for every examples or you'll end up having mutable Foo where examples itself is changing, which is also not good.
Your code looks fine. The only thing that concerns me is that one method depends on another. It's usually not a big deal, but this would look better to me:
def apply?(examples)
foo_1(examples) && foo_2(examples)
end
Another option is to use block:
class Foo
def initialize(a)
#a = a
end
def apply?(examples)
foo_1 { examples }
end
private
def foo_1
v = foo_2 { yield.size }
v ? 1 : 2
end
def foo_2
yield > #a
end
end
Since the class Foo does nothing else presently than just evaluate .apply?(examples) I will advice examples be added to the initializer and made an instance variable. This is simpler, more efficient and more obvious.
class Foo
def initialize(a, examples)
#a = a
#examples = examples
end
def apply?
foo_1
end
private
def foo_1
foo_2 ? 1 : 2
end
def foo_2
#examples.size > #a
end
end
Related
I have an issue I have been whacking my head against for hours now, and neither I nor anyone I have asked has been able to come up with a suitable answer.
Essentially, I am writing a method that allows me to edit an instance variable of another method. I have multiple ways of doing this, however my issue is with writing the test for this method. I have tried many different double types, however as they are immutable and do not store states, I did not manage to find a way to make it work.
Here is the class whose working variable is changed:
class MyClass
attr_writer :working
def working?
#working
end
end
Here is the class and method that change it:
class OtherClass
def makes_work
#ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix.map do |x|
x.working = true
#ary_of_fixed_objects << x
end
end
end
(The actual class is much larger, but I have only included a generalised version of the method in question. I can put all of the specific code up in a gist if it would help)
So I need a way to test that makes_work does in fact accept the array of objects to be changed, changes them and appends them to array_of_fixed_objects. What would be the best way of testing this in a containerised way, without requiring MyClass?
My last attempt was using spies to see what methods were called on my dummy instance, however a range of failures, depending on what I did. Here is the most recent test I wrote:
describe '#make_work' do
it 'returns array of working instances' do
test_obj = spy('test_obj')
subject.ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix = [test_obj]
subject.makes_work
expect(test_obj).to have_received(working = true)
end
end
This currently throws the error:
undefined method to_sym for true:TrueClass
Many thanks for any help! I apologise if some formatting/ info is a little bit messed up, I am still pretty new to this whole stackoverflow thing!
I think the problem is have_received(working = true), it should be have_received(:working=).with(true)
Edit:
Examples of using have_received
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks#test-spies
https://relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/v/3-5/docs/setting-constraints/matching-arguments
This works for me
class MyClass
attr_writer :working
def working?
#working
end
end
class OtherClass
attr_writer :ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix
def initialize
#ary_of_fixed_objects = []
end
def makes_work
#ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix.map do |x|
x.working = true
#ary_of_fixed_objects << x
end
end
end
describe '#make_work' do
subject { OtherClass.new }
it 'returns array of working instances' do
test_obj = spy('test_obj')
subject.ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix = [test_obj]
subject.makes_work
expect(test_obj).to have_received(:working=).with(true)
end
end
If you'd rather just avoid stubbing, you could use an instance of OpenStruct instead of a double:
class OtherClass
attr_writer :ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix
def initialize
#ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix, #ary_of_fixed_objects = [], []
end
def makes_work
#ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix.map do |x|
x.working = true
#ary_of_fixed_objects << x
end
#ary_of_fixed_objects
end
end
require 'ostruct'
RSpec.describe "#makes_work" do
describe "given an array" do
let(:array) { [OpenStruct.new(working: nil)] }
subject { OtherClass.new }
before do
subject.ary_of_instances_of_MyClass_to_fix = array
end
it "sets the 'working' attribute for each element" do
expect(array.map(&:working)).to eq [nil]
subject.makes_work
expect(array.map(&:working)).to eq [true]
end
end
end
EDIT: For those criticizing my intentions with replacing self, you are free to click the back button, continue developing with your own opinions, and leave me to develop with mine :)
I was wondering if there is a way to completely remove the object that self references and replace it with a new instance.
Example:
def refresh_from_server!
self = newly_fetched_object_from_server
end
I don't want to return the new object.
It seems like I would have to build my own copying interface and call self.copy_from(other_object) but maybe someone has a cool ruby bit to share that works better!
--EDIT
Since some people seem unclear on the question, I want instance.my_method! to completely replace instance with a new instance of that class
For example lets imagine we have a class
class Counter
attr_accessor :count
def initialize
count = 0
end
def reset!
# This is what I want to achieve.
# Obviously in this case it would be trivial to write `self.count = 0`
# Or return a new value
# But I have a much more complex object in real life
# which copying would not be trivial
# All I'm looking for is a bit of stylistic sugar to make my code look cooler
# If it doesn't exist, I would love to know why
self = Counter.new
end
def up
count += 1
end
end
No, you can't replace self. You can only change some/all of its state, but the object reference will remain the same.
Why would you want to do this, anyway? If you just want to piggyback on your initialization logic (as it seems to me to be the case), some refactoring will help: just call a shared method from both places.
class Counter
attr_accessor :count
def initialize
init_state
end
def reset!
init_state
end
def up
self.count += 1
end
private
def init_state
self.count = 0
end
end
As already noted by others, self can't be replaced from enclosed instance. If replacement of instance with a new instance is required, it need to be done from outside, like in a class factory which registers its class instances.
Bellow is a simplest example using a delegator, demonstrating what I mean. SimpleDelegator represents a simple wrapper around Counter instance:
require 'delegate'
class Counter
attr_accessor :count
def initialize
#count = 0
end
end
class CounterDecorator < SimpleDelegator
def reset!
__setobj__(__getobj__.class.new)
end
end
c = CounterDecorator.new(Counter.new)
p c.__getobj__.object_id
c.count = 123
p c.count
c.reset!
p c.__getobj__.object_id
p c.count
# produces following output
20131160
123
20130900
0
Though the question is old, it is still visited. I will attempt to elaborate more on the "why" in "Why can't self be replaced in Ruby?".
usage of self in which context
https://web.archive.org/web/20191217060940/https://www.honeybadger.io/blog/ruby-self-cheat-sheet/
There are various contexts in which self can be used. You question uses it in the context of an instance method, so I will focus on that.
E.g. this context:
class SomeClass
def some_method
puts "#{self.class} - #{self.object_id} - #{self.inspect}"
end
end
a = SomeClass.new
a.some_method
# prints : SomeClass - 47013616336320 - #<SomeClass:0x000055846bcd7b80>
Note that there are other usages of self: e.g. where it reference the Class object in scope of a class definition. E.g.
class SomeClass
puts "#{self.class} - #{self.object_id} - #{self.inspect}"
end
# prints : Class - 47102719314940 - SomeClass
the intended effect of replacing self
Below code a demonstration of what you expected / wished (as I understand it):
class Counter
def some_method
puts "#{self.class} - #{self.object_id} - #{self.inspect}"
end
def refresh!
self = Counter.new # not possible
# results in error : "Can't change the value of self"
end
end
a = Counter.new
a.some_method
# prints : Counter - 47013616336320 - #<Counter:0x000055846bcd7b80>
a.refresh!
# now you wish a to point to a different object
But what about other references? E.g. assuming you wanted:
a = Counter.new
b = a
a.some_method
b.some_method
# both print same : Counter - 47013616336320 - #<Counter:0x000055846bcd7b80>
a.refresh!
# now you wish both a and b to point to the same (new) object
If stated as such it gives a hint on the why not.
why we can't replace self
The short answer is that it is simply not something that the language / interpreter offers. As to the reasoning: in a way #matthewd answers that in this answer:
All ruby variable references are essentially pointers (but not
pointers-to-pointers), in C parlance.
You can mutate an object (assuming it's not immutable), and all
variables that reference it will thus be pointing at the same (now
mutated) object. But the only way to change which object a variable is
referring to is with direct assignment to that variable -- and each
variable is a separate reference; you can't alias a single reference
with two names.
In short: there may be other references to that object in variables that are not in the scope of the instance method. These cannot be manipulated by that instance method.
a way to achieve the intended effect
If you want this effect and only want to touch the code of Counter you might move all methods and state to an inner class Counter::Inner and make Counter behave like a decoupled reference. The only 'state' of Counter would be the reference to the Counter::Inner object and Counter can delegate all calls it receives to that reference in a method_missing method. In case of your refresh! you can replace the reference in Counter same as you now intent to replace self. All outside code will now use indirectly the new Counter:Inner instance.
class Counter
class Inner
def some_method
puts "#{self.class} - #{self.object_id} - #{self.inspect}"
end
end
def initialize(*args)
#reference = Inner.new(*args)
end
def method_missing(method_id, *args)
#reference.send(method_id, *args)
end
def refresh!
#reference = Inner.new
end
end
a = Counter.new
b = a
a.some_method
b.some_method
# both print same : Counter::Inner - 46991238242100 - #<Counter::Inner:0x0000557a00203e68>
a.refresh!
a.some_method
b.some_method
# both print same : Counter::Inner - 46991238240000 - #<Counter::Inner:0x0000557a00202e00>
Just one more answer for the archives :-) I hope this gives useful insights to future visitors.
I'm trying to create a method to dynamically do the following: (as I will have to implement this on about 30 different sets of sub-classes)
def t1
FooT1.new
end
def t2
FooT2.new
end
def t3
FooT3.new
end
Where there will be 2 variables in the method generation, the tab number(t1...tx) and the name of the class (Foo)
I tried the following, but I'm new to Ruby and can not get this working.
def method_generator(num_tabs, class_name)
1.upto(num_tabs) do |i|
define_method("t#{i}") do
"#{class_name}_t#{i}".new
end
end
end
Then call it in the sub-class like so:
method_generator(3, "Bar")
I'm aware I'm probably quite far off in implementing this, so any help is appreciated.
Just do as below :
def method_generator(num_tabs, class_name)
1.upto(num_tabs) do |i|
class_name.send(:define_method,"t#{i}") do
"#{class_name}_t#{i}".new
end
end
end
Module#define_method is a private method, thus you can't call it on the class_name like class_name.define_method(:name) do ..end, as private method call not allows explicit receiver. But to do so Object#send will help you, as this method is here for this kind of scenarios, where you can't call private method by explicit receiver.
Lets verify with an example, if this tricks works or not.
class Foo;end
def method_generator(num_tabs, class_name)
1.upto(num_tabs) do |i|
class_name.send(:define_method,"t#{i}") do
"#{class_name}_t#{i}".new
end
end
end
method_generator(3,Foo)
Foo.instance_methods(false)
# => [:t1, :t2, :t3] # see here 3 instance methods has been created of class Foo
I would like to access a class' name in its superclass MySuperclass' self.inherited method. It works fine for concrete classes as defined by class Foo < MySuperclass; end but it fails when using anonymous classes. I tend to avoid creating (class-)constants in tests; I would like it to work with anonymous classes.
Given the following code:
class MySuperclass
def self.inherited(subclass)
super
# work with subclass' name
end
end
klass = Class.new(MySuperclass) do
def self.name
'FooBar'
end
end
klass#name will still be nil when MySuperclass.inherited is called as that will be before Class.new yields to its block and defines its methods.
I understand a class gets its name when it's assigned to a constant, but is there a way to set Class#name "early" without creating a constant?
I prepared a more verbose code example with failing tests to illustrate what's expected.
Probably #yield has taken place after the ::inherited is called, I saw the similar behaviour with class definition. However, you can avoid it by using ::klass singleton method instead of ::inherited callback.
def self.klass
#klass ||= (self.name || self.to_s).gsub(/Builder\z/, '')
end
I am trying to understand the benefit of being able to refer to an anonymous class by a name you have assigned to it after it has been created. I thought I might be able to move the conversation along by providing some code that you could look at and then tell us what you'd like to do differently:
class MySuperclass
def self.inherited(subclass)
# Create a class method for the subclass
subclass.instance_eval do
def sub_class() puts "sub_class here" end
end
# Create an instance method for the subclass
subclass.class_eval do
def sub_instance() puts "sub_instance here" end
end
end
end
klass = Class.new(MySuperclass) do
def self.name=(name)
#name = Object.const_set(name, self)
end
def self.name
#name
end
end
klass.sub_class #=> "sub_class here"
klass.new.sub_instance #=> "sub_instance here"
klass.name = 'Fido' #=> "Fido"
kn = klass.name #=> Fido
kn.sub_class #=> "sub_class here"
kn.new.sub_instance #=> "sub_instance here"
klass.name = 'Woof' #=> "Woof"
kn = klass.name #=> Fido (cannot change)
There is no way in pure Ruby to set a class name without assigning it to a constant.
If you're using MRI and want to write yourself a very small C extension, it would look something like this:
VALUE
force_class_name (VALUE klass, VALUE symbol_name)
{
rb_name_class(klass, SYM2ID(symbol_name));
return klass;
}
void
Init_my_extension ()
{
rb_define_method(rb_cClass, "force_class_name", force_class_name, 1);
}
This is a very heavy approach to the problem. Even if it works it won't be guaranteed to work across various versions of ruby, since it relies on the non-API C function rb_name_class. I'm also not sure what the behavior will be once Ruby gets around to running its own class-naming hooks afterward.
The code snippet for your use case would look like this:
require 'my_extension'
class MySuperclass
def self.inherited(subclass)
super
subclass.force_class_name(:FooBar)
# work with subclass' name
end
end
I have a class that contains some private attributes. What I would like to do is to dynamically add some setters for these only for the execution of a specific block.
Example of what I would like to be able to:
class Content
attr_reader :a, :b
def initialize
#a = 1
#b = "plop"
end
def set(&block)
extend(Setter)
instance_eval(&block)
unextend(Setter) ????
end
module Setter
def a(value)
#a = value
end
def b(value)
#b = value
end
end
end
content = Content.new
content.set do
a 2
b "yeah!"
end
content.a # should return 2
EDIT: Thanks for the great answers so far. I clarified the question because I actually need to define attribute readers in the class itself that may conflict with the setters defined in the module. I forgot about this part when posting the question. (It was late ^^)
CLARIFICATION: This class is intended for a DSL to write a configuration file. It is targeted at non-developer so the less operators, the better.
I currently implement this using a proxy class that instance_eval the block but I have to mess with instance_variable_set in order to set the values and I don't like it. I am just trying another way to see if I can make my code more readable.
There's no native way to "unextend" modules in Ruby. The mixology gem implements this pattern as a C (and Java, for JRuby) extension, creating mixin and unmix methods. It appears you may need to apply a patch if you need Ruby 1.9 support, however.
If you'd prefer to avoid using third-party libraries, another approach might simply be to make the setters private:
class Content
def initialize
#a = 1
#b = "plop"
end
def set(&block)
instance_eval(&block)
end
private
def a(val)
#a = val
end
def b(val)
#b = val
end
end
content = Content.new
#This will succeed
content.set do
a 2
b "yeah!"
end
# This will raise a NoMethodError, as it attempts to call a private method
content.a 3
def set(&block)
extend(Setter)
instance_eval(&block)
Setter.instance_methods.each do |m|
instance_eval "undef #{m}"
end
end
I don't know of any method that would do that for you although there might be something.. This should do the job though, by finding all the instance methods of Setter and undefining them in Content.
You could use _why's mixico library (available on github)
It would let you do this:
require 'mixology'
#...
def set(&block)
Setter.mix_eval(Setter, &block)
end
The mixology gem does much the same thing, just slightly differently.
if you're feeling in an experimental mood also check out: dup_eval
It's similar in some ways to mixico but with some interesting extras (object2module)