To achieve a DSL like attribute assignment,a dual-purpose accessor was utilized. However, I was seeking a way to refactor the obvious code duplication.
class Layer
def size(size=nil)
return #size unless size
#size = size
end
def type(type=nil)
return #type unless type
#type = type
end
def color(color=nil)
return #color unless color
#color = color
end
end
I was thinking define those method in a class method by using define_method along with other methods to get/set the instance variables. However, the dilemma is how can I access the instance from class method?
def self.createAttrMethods
[:size,:type,:color].each do |attr|
define_method(attr) do |arg=nil|
#either use instance.send() or
#instance_variable_get/set
#But those method are instance method !!
end
end
end
Inside of define_method block, self will be pointing to current instance of class. So use instance_variable_get.
class Foo
def self.createAttrMethods
[:size,:type,:color].each do |attr|
define_method(attr) do |arg = nil|
name = "##{attr}"
return instance_variable_get(name) unless arg
instance_variable_set(name, arg)
end
end
end
createAttrMethods
end
f = Foo.new
f.size # => nil
f.size 3
f.size # => 3
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'm currently doing some metaprogramming with ruby, and I'm trying to isolate the methods of class (that class is in another file, that I get by a require). I can get all the methods, thanks to klass.public_instance_methods(false), but I in the sametime, the array given also have all the attributes of the class. How could I isolate them ? In others related questions on SO, they suggest to use klass.instance_variables but when I do that, it only returns an empty array.
I can't seem to wrap my head around that one. I don't understand why there isn't a method specifically for that already...
For example:
I have in a file this class :
class T
attr_reader:a
def initialize(a)
#a = a
end
def meth
#code here
end
end
And, in another file, i have
require_relative 'T.rb'
class meta
def initialize
methods = T.public_instance_methods(false) #=> here methods = [:a,:meth] but I would want only to have [:meth]
#rest of code
end
end
For class defined like this:
class Klass
attr_accessor :variable
def initialize(variable)
#variable = variable
end
def method
end
end
you can find public non-attr instance methods using public_instance_methods and instance_variables methods.
public_instance_methods = Klass.public_instance_methods(false)
# [:method, :variable, :variable=]
instance_variables = Klass.new(nil).instance_variables
# [:#variable]
getters_and_setters = instance_variables
.map(&:to_s)
.map{|v| v[1..-1] }
.flat_map {|v| [v, v + '=']}
.map(&:to_sym)
# [:variable, :variable=]
without_attr = public_instance_methods - getters_and_setters
# [:method]
This is impossible. Ruby's "attributes" are completely normal methods. There is no way to distinguish them from other methods. For example, these two classes are completely indistinguishable:
class Foo
attr_reader :bar
end
class Foo
def bar
#bar
end
end
You can try to be clever and filter them out based on instance variables, but that is dangerous:
class Foo
# can filter this out using #bar
attr_writer :bar
def initialize
#bar = []
end
end
class Foo
def initialize
#bar = []
end
# this looks the same as above, but isn't a normal attribute!
def bar= x
#bar = x.to_a
end
end
I tried to to extend the code from this question for keeping records of an attribute value. However, my code fails in the case of more than one attributes. Here is the code:
class Class
def attr_accessor_with_history(attr_name)
attr_name = attr_name.to_s
attr_reader attr_name
ah=attr_name+"_history"
attr_reader ah
class_eval %Q{
def #{attr_name}= (attr_name)
#attr_name=attr_name
if #ah == nil
#ah=[nil]
end
#ah.push(attr_name)
end
def #{ah}
#ah
end
def #{attr_name}
#attr_name
end
}
end
end
Here a dummy class for testing
class Foo
attr_accessor_with_history :bar
attr_accessor_with_history :bar1
end
f = Foo.new
f.bar = 1
f.bar = 2
f.bar1 = 5
p f.bar_history
p f.bar1_history
For some reason, f.bar and f.bar1 both return 5 and f.bar_history = f.bar1_history = [nil, 1, 2, 5]. Any idea why that is?
You were using #ah and #attr_name instead of ##{ah} and ##{attr_name} when getting/setting in the methods. This meant that they were always setting and returning the same instance variable, instead of different, dynamically named ones.
class Class
def attr_accessor_with_history(attr_name)
class_eval %{
attr_reader :#{attr_name}, :#{attr_name}_history
def #{attr_name}=(value)
##{attr_name} = value
##{attr_name}_history ||= [nil]
##{attr_name}_history << value
end
}
end
end
I've also generally cleaned up your code a little to make it (I think) clearer and more concise.
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.
I'm trying to understand this function.
What I can see is an attribute and type are passed to the opal() method.
Then type_name takes its value from type as long as type is a Symbol or String. Otherwise, the name method is called on type. I imagine the name method is similar to the class method to get the class of the type argument.
After self.class_eval I'm kind of lost but my guess is this is defining maybe a block of code to be added to the class referenced by self.
How this works I'm not sure though.
Would appreciate if someone could explain what's going on after self.class_eval << DEF.
def opal(attr, type)
self.ds "#{attr}_id"
type_name = (type.is_a?(Symbol) || type.is_a?(String)) ? type : type.name
self.class_eval <<DEF
def #{attr}
if defined?(##{attr})
##{attr}
else
##{attr} = if self.#{attr}_id
#{type_name}.get(self.#{attr}_id)
else
nil
end
end
end
def #{attr}=(value)
self.#{attr}_id = value.key
##{attr} = value
end
DEF
end
Everything between <<DEF and DEF is just a string and the #{ ... }s work on that string like any other.
class_eval will cause the interpreter to run on the string in the context of the module.
So, if you know what attr and type are then you can work out what code is being run to add methods to the class.
Lets say attr is "foo" and type is "Bazzle". The code being run would be:
def foo
if defined?(#foo)
#foo
else
#foo = if self.foo_id
Bazzle.get(self.foo_id)
else
nil
end
end
end
def foo=(value)
self.foo_id = value.key
#foo = value
end
To make it easy to understand, let's suppose the value of 'attr' is 'foo', here's what it looks like now:
self.class_eval <<DEF
def foo
if defined?(#foo) # Return the value of attr if it's defined
#foo
else
#foo = if self.foo_id
#{type_name}.get(self.foo_id)
else
nil
end
end
end
def foo=(value) # Define setter
self.foo_id = value.key
#foo = value
end
DEF
So it's just defining some getter and setter methods for #foo, and evaluating it at the class level.