class Event
#event_list = {}
attr_reader :name, :value
def initialize(name, value)
#name = name
#value = value
end
def to_s
"#{#value}"
end
class << self
def event_list
#event_list
end
def event_list=(value); end
def register_event(name, value)
#event_list[name] = Event.new(name, value)
end
def registered_events
event_list
end
end
end
In the above code snippet I can access #event_list using Event.event_list, interesting thing is I am able to modify this variable from outside
Event.event_list[:name] = "hello"
Event.event_list # => { :name => 'hello' }
How can I avoid this ?, I don't want to modify #event_list from outside.
As far as I know, you can't stop outside code from modifying your instance variables in Ruby. Even if you don't use attr_reader and attr_writer it can still be accessed using Object#instance_variable_set. Ruby doesn't have private variables (or constants), only variables that you are politely asked not to modify.
If you don't define event_list=, that is seen as an indication that #event_list is a private variable. This is the solution to your problem.
Then there is the problem with mutable objects. Since almost all objects in Ruby sadly are mutable, usually if you can just get a reference to an object then you can change it.
This can be solved with Object#freeze which stops an object from being modified. Unfortunately this means that not even you can modify it.
Ruby is simply not very good for locking things down. This openness is a core part of the language that you probably need to learn to work with.
As others have said, just make the methods private:
class Event
#event_list = {a: 'dog'}
class << self
def pub_event_list
#event_list
end
def pub_event_list=(other)
#event_list=other
end
private
def event_list
#event_list
end
def event_list=(value)
#event_list = value
end
end
end
Event.event_list
#=> NoMethodError: private method `event_list' called for Event:Class
Event.pub_event_list
#=> {:a=>"dog"}
Event.event_list= {b: 'cat'}
#=> #NoMethodError: private method `event_list=' called for Event:Class
Event.pub_event_list= {b: 'cat'}
#=> {:b=>"cat"}
You are defining def event_list on your singleton which is providing access to the variable. Make that method private
EDIT:
When you are declaring #event_list it has scope in your singleton methods.
class Event
#event_list = {}
class << self
def event_list
# scoped from above
#event_list
end
end
end
Event.event_list #=> {}
To remove access simply make the method private:
class Event
#event_list = {}
class << self
private
def event_list
# scoped from above
#event_list
end
end
end
Event.event_list #=> NoMethodError: private method `event_list' called for Event:Class
Here is what I done for now, I don't know if it is a good solution
class Event
#event_list = {}
attr_reader :name, :value
def initialize(name, value)
#name = name
#value = value
end
def to_s
"#{#value}"
end
class << self
def register_event(name, value)
#event_list = #event_list.merge(name => Event.new(name, value))
end
def registered_events
#event_list.freeze
end
end
end
Now I can access #event_list without letting others to modify.
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 am building an in-memory instance model in Ruby. There are a bunch of classes that each get instantiated and managed by class methods on that class. There are a bunch of those class methods, e.g. list all instances, retrieve all instances, etc.
The code for these methods is common across all classes and does not need to take any account of any particularities of those classes. Hence, I would like that code to live in a common place. See the list method below. My question: How to best achieve this.
class A
attr_reader :value
##instances = []
def initialize(value:)
#value = value; ##instances << self
end
def self.list
##instances.each { |i| puts "#{i.value}"}
end
end
class B
attr_reader :value
##instances = []
def initialize(value:)
#value = value; ##instances << self
end
def self.list
##instances.each { |i| puts "#{i.value}"}
end
end
A.new(value: '100')
A.new(value: '101')
B.new(value: '200')
B.new(value: '201')
A.list
B.list
Ideally, I define the list method only once. I have also tried moving that to a super-class:
class Entity
def self.list
##instances.each { |i| puts "AB: #{i.value}"}
end
end
class A < Entity
attr_reader :value
##instances = []
def initialize(value:)
#value = value; ##instances << self
end
end
class B < Entity
attr_reader :value
##instances = []
def initialize(value:)
#value = value; ##instances << self
end
end
...but as one would expect the super-class cannot access the ##instances array of its sub-classes. Moving the ##instances array to the super-class results in the array being common to all classes, which is not what I need.
The main change you need to make is to use class instance variables rather than class variables. For reasons explained here class variables should be used sparingly; class instance variables are generally a better choice, as is illustrated nicely by this question.
class Entity
attr_reader :value
class << self
attr_reader :ins
end
def self.inherited(klass)
klass.instance_variable_set(:#ins, [])
end
def initialize(value:)
#value = value
self.class.ins << self
end
def self.list
#ins.each { |i| puts "#{i.value}"}
end
end
class A < Entity; end
class B < Entity; end
A.new(value: '100')
#=> #<A:0x00005754a59dc640 #value="100">
A.new(value: '101')
#=> #<A:0x00005754a59e4818 #value="101">
A.list
# 100
# 101
B.new(value: '200')
#=> #<B:0x00005754a59f0910 #value="200">
B.new(value: '201')
#=> #<B:0x00005754a59f8b88 #value="201">
B.list
# 200
# 201
I defined a getter for the class instance variable #ins in Entity's singleton class1:
class << self
attr_reader :ins
end
When subclasses of Entity are created the callback method Class::inherited is executed on Entity, passing as an argument the class that has been created. inherited creates and initializes (to an empty array) the class instance variable #ins for the class created.
Another way of doing that, without using a callback method, is as follows.
class Entity
attr_reader :value
class << self
attr_accessor :ins
end
def initialize(value:)
#value = value
(self.class.ins ||= []) << self
end
def self.list
#ins.each { |i| puts "#{i.value}"}
end
end
The fragment:
(self.class.ins ||= [])
sets #ins to an empty array if #ins equals nil. If #ins is referenced before it is created, nil is returned, so either way, #ins is set equal to []. In order to execute this statement I needed to change attr_reader :ins to attr_accessor :ins in order to perform the assignment #ins = [] (though I could have used instance_variable_set instead).
Note that if I were to add the line #ins = [] to Entity (as th first line, say), the instance variable #ins would be created for every subclass when the subclass is created, but that instance variable would not be initialized to an empty array, so that line would serve no purpose.
1. Alternatively, one could write, singleton_class.public_send(:attr_reader, :ins).
I'm fairly new to Ruby metaprogramming. I'm trying to write code which generates the
"dup" function for a class when it's created, using a list of fields which should be passed into the constructor. However, I can't figure out how to get access to the name of the class I'm creating, while I'm creating it.
So for example, if I had this code:
class Example
make_dup :name, :value
attr_accessor :name, :value
def initialize(name,value)
#name, #value = name, value
end
end
I'd want it to create the method:
def dup
Example.new(name,value)
end
I'm just getting stuck on how it would figure out to insert Example there.
Note that all classes have built-in dup and clone methods. You can customize what happens in them by adding an initialize_copy method, e.g.:
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar
def initialize_copy(orig)
super
#bar = #bar.dup
end
end
In case that isn't what you're truly looking for, you can access an object's class using its class method:
class Foo
def p_class
p self.class # Foo.new.p_class => Foo ; self is *a* `Foo'
end
def self.p_class
p self.class # Foo.p_class => Class ; self *is* `Foo'
end
end
def dup
self.class.new(name,value)
end
Maybe you can implement it this way:
module MyDup
def make_dup(*args)
define_method(:my_dup) do
obj = self.class.new(nil, nil)
args.each do |arg|
obj.send(arg.to_s + "=", self.send(arg))
end
obj
end
end
end
class Example
extend MyDup
make_dup :name, :value
attr_accessor :name, :value
def initialize(name,value)
#name, #value = name, value
end
end
e = Example.new("John", 30)
p e
d = e.my_dup
p d
Execution result as follows:
#<Example:0x000000022325d8 #name="John", #value=30>
#<Example:0x00000002232358 #name="John", #value=30>
I have a test class and a box class, in the test class i have a var called boxHolder, which is an array, i want to override the << method for this array. Inside the singleton how can i access moski_call ?
class Test
attr_accessor :boxHolder
def initialize()
super
self.boxHolder = Array.new
class << #boxHolder
def <<(box)
box.setPositionWithinColumn(moski_call)
super(box)
end
end
end
def moski_call
"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
end
end
class Box
def initialize
end
def setPositionWithinColumn(str)
puts "got a string #{str}"
end
end
# test
box = Box.new
test = Test.new
test.boxHolder
like this:
# need this or else `moski_call` method is looked up in context of #boxholder
moski_call_output = moski_call
class << #boxholder; self; end.send(:define_method, :<<) { |box|
box.setPositionWithinColumn(moski_call_output)
super(box)
}
What about:
def self.boxHolder.<< (box)
box.setPositionWithinColumn(moski_call)
super(box)
end
This would declare a method for your instance boxHolder. But boxHolder does not have access to the method moski_call
You need to maintain access to the "parent" Test object. This can be done using the fact that blocks are closures:
parent = self # to be accessible in the closure
#boxHolder.define_singleton_method(:<<) do |box|
box.setPositionWithinColumn(parent.moski_call)
super(box)
end
Note: define_singleton_method is new in Ruby 1.9, so either upgrade, require 'backports/1.9.1/kernel/define_singleton_method' or do class << #boxHolder; define_method(:<<){ "..." } end if using an older Ruby.
Given the following class:
class Test
attr_accessor :name
end
When I create the object, I want to do the following:
t = Test.new {name = 'Some Test Object'}
At the moment, it results in the name attribute still being nil.
Is that possible without adding an initializer?
ok,
I came up with a solution. It uses the initialize method but on the other hand do exactly what you want.
class Test
attr_accessor :name
def initialize(init)
init.each_pair do |key, val|
instance_variable_set('#' + key.to_s, val)
end
end
def display
puts #name
end
end
t = Test.new :name => 'hello'
t.display
happy ? :)
Alternative solution using inheritance. Note, with this solution, you don't need to explicitly declare the attr_accessor!
class CSharpStyle
def initialize(init)
init.each_pair do |key, val|
instance_variable_set('#' + key.to_s, val)
instance_eval "class << self; attr_accessor :#{key.to_s}; end"
end
end
end
class Test < CSharpStyle
def initialize(arg1, arg2, *init)
super(init.last)
end
end
t = Test.new 'a val 1', 'a val 2', {:left => 'gauche', :right => 'droite'}
puts "#{t.left} <=> #{t.right}"
As mentioned by others, the easiest way to do this would be to define an initialize method. If you don't want to do that, you could make your class inherit from Struct.
class Test < Struct.new(:name)
end
So now:
>> t = Test.new("Some Test Object")
=> #<struct Test name="Some Test Object">
>> t.name
=> "Some Test Object"
There is a general way of doing complex object initialization by
passing a block with necessary actions. This block is evaluated in the
context of the object to be initialized, so you have an easy access to
all instance variables and methods.
Continuing your example, we can define this generic initializer:
class Test
attr_accessor :name
def initialize(&block)
instance_eval(&block)
end
end
and then pass it the appropriate code block:
t = Test.new { #name = 'name' }
or
t = Test.new do
self.name = 'name'
# Any other initialization code, if needed.
end
Note that this approach does not require adding much complexity
to the initialize method, per se.
As previously mentioned, the sensible way to do this is either with a Struct or by defining an Test#initialize method. This is exactly what structs and constructors are for. Using an options hash corresponding to attributes is the closest equivalent of your C# example, and it's a normal-looking Ruby convention:
t = Test.new({:name => "something"})
t = Test.new(name: "something") # json-style or kwargs
But in your example you are doing something that looks more like variable assignment using = so let's try using a block instead of a hash. (You're also using Name which would be a constant in Ruby, we'll change that.)
t = Test.new { #name = "something" }
Cool, now let's make that actually work:
class BlockInit
def self.new(&block)
super.tap { |obj| obj.instance_eval &block }
end
end
class Test < BlockInit
attr_accessor :name
end
t = Test.new { #name = "something" }
# => #<Test:0x007f90d38bacc0 #name="something">
t.name
# => "something"
We've created a class with a constructor that accepts a block argument, which is executed within the newly-instantiated object.
Because you said you wanted to avoid using initialize, I'm instead overriding new and calling super to get the default behavior from Object#new. Normally we would define initialize instead, this approach isn't recommended except in meeting the specific request in your question.
When we pass a block into a subclass of BlockInit we can do more than just set variable... we're essentially just injecting code into the initialize method (which we're avoiding writing). If you also wanted an initialize method that does other stuff (as you mentioned in comments) you could add it to Test and not even have to call super (since our changes aren't in BlockInit#initialize, rather BlockInit.new)
Hope that's a creative solution to a very specific and intriguing request.
The code you're indicating is passing parameters into the initialize function. You will most definitely have to either use initialize, or use a more boring syntax:
test = Test.new
test.name = 'Some test object'
Would need to subclass Test (here shown with own method and initializer) e.g.:
class Test
attr_accessor :name, :some_var
def initialize some_var
#some_var = some_var
end
def some_function
"#{some_var} calculation by #{name}"
end
end
class SubClassedTest < Test
def initialize some_var, attrbs
attrbs.each_pair do |k,v|
instance_variable_set('#' + k.to_s, v)
end
super(some_var)
end
end
tester = SubClassedTest.new "some", name: "james"
puts tester.some_function
outputs: some calculation by james
You could do this.
class Test
def not_called_initialize(but_act_like_one)
but_act_like_one.each_pair do |variable,value|
instance_variable_set('#' + variable.to_s, value)
class << self
self
end.class_eval do
attr_accessor variable
end
end
end
end
(t = Test.new).not_called_initialize :name => "Ashish", :age => 33
puts t.name #=> Ashish
puts t.age #=> 33
One advantage is that you don't even have to define your instance variables upfront using attr_accessor. You could pass all the instance variables you need through not_called_initialize method and let it create them besides defining the getters and setters.
If you don't want to override initialize then you'll have to move up the chain and override new. Here's an example:
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar, :baz
def self.new(*args, &block)
allocate.tap do |instance|
if args.last.is_a?(Hash)
args.last.each_pair do |k,v|
instance.send "#{k}=", v
end
else
instance.send :initialize, *args
end
end
end
def initialize(*args)
puts "initialize called with #{args}"
end
end
If the last thing you pass in is a Hash it will bypass initialize and call the setters immediately. If you pass anything else in it will call initialize with those arguments.