I'm working on a class that reads some sensor information and returns it as a hash. I would like to use the hash keys as accessors, but I'm not having much luck getting it work. Here are the relevant parts of my code so far:
I've tried it both with method_missing and by using the :define_method method.
attr_reader :sensor_hash
def method_missing(name, *args, &blk)
if args.empty? && blk.nil? && #sensor_hash.has_key?(name.to_s)
#sensor_hash[name.to_s]
else
super
end
end
def sensor(*sensor_to_return)
sensor_output = run_command(this_method_name)
sensor_output = sensor_output.split("\n")
sensor_output.map! { |line| line.downcase! }
unless sensor_to_return.empty?
sensor_to_return = sensor_to_return.to_s.downcase
sensor_output = sensor_output.grep(/^#{sensor_to_return}\s/)
end
#sensor_hash = Hash.new
sensor_output.each { |stat| #sensor_hash[stat.split(/\s+\|\s?/)[0].gsub(' ','_').to_sym] = stat.split(/\s?\|\s?/)[1..-1].each { |v| v.strip! } }
#sensor_hash.each do |k,v|
puts v.join("\t")
self.class.send :define_method, k { v.join("\t") }
end
return #sensor_hash
The data returned is a hash with the sensor name as the key and and the value is an array of everything else returned. My goal is to be able to call Class.sensor.sensor_name and get the output of Class.sensor[:sensor_name]. Currently, all I'm able to get is an undefined method error. Anybody have any idea what I'm doing wrong here?
Maybe OpenStruct does what you want. From the doc :"It is like a hash with a different way to access the data. In fact, it is implemented with a hash, and you can initialize it with one."
require 'ostruct'
s=OpenStruct.new({:sensor_name=>'sensor1',:data=>['something',1,[1,2,3]]})
p s.sensor_name
#=> "sensor1"
Just a quick example. Do you have any reasons to not monkey-patch your Hash?
irb(main):001:0> class Hash
irb(main):002:1> def method_missing(name, *args, &blk)
irb(main):003:2> if self.keys.map(&:to_sym).include? name.to_sym
irb(main):004:3> return self[name.to_sym]
irb(main):005:3> else
irb(main):006:3* super
irb(main):007:3> end
irb(main):008:2> end
irb(main):009:1> end
=> nil
irb(main):012:0> h = {:hello => 'world'}
=> {:hello=>"world"}
irb(main):013:0> h.hello
=> "world"
You could use a wrapper class with method missing so you don't have to monkey patch Hash.
class AccessibleHash
def initialize(hash)
#hash = hash
end
def method_missing(name, *args, &block)
sname = name.to_sym
if #hash.keys.include? sname
return #hash[sname]
else
super
end
end
end
Or, if you are working with Rails it has some nice built in object delegation with SimpleDelegator. That would allow you to define accessors on your hash as well as any nested hashes within it.
class AccessibleHash < SimpleDelegator
def initialize
define_accessors(self.keys)
end
def define_accessors(keys)
keys.each do |key|
defind_accessors(body[key].keys)
self.define_singleton_method(key) { self[key] }
end
end
end
ah = AccessibleHash.new({ some: 'hash', with: { recursive: 'accessors' })
ah.with.recursive == 'accessors'
=> true
This would be less performant at instantiation than method_missing, because it has to run recursively over your delegatee object as soon as it's created. However, it's definitely safer than method_missing, and certainly way safer than monkey patching your Hash class. Of course, safety is relative to your goals, If it's all your application does then monkey patch away.
And if you want the recursive, nested accessors without rails you could do something like this with a combination of the above...
class AccessibleHash
def initialize(hash)
#hash = hash
define_accessors(#hash.keys)
end
def define_accessors(keys)
keys.each do |key|
#hash[key] = self.class.new(#hash[key]) if #hash.keys.present?
self.define_singleton_method(key) { self[key] }
end
end
end
But at that point you're getting pretty crazy and it's probably worth reevaluating your solution in favor of something more Object Oriented. If I saw any of these in a code review it would definitely throw up a red flag. ;)
Related
I'm attempting to adapt the method-chaining example cited in this posting (Method chaining and lazy evaluation in Ruby) to work with an object that implements the Enumerable class (Implement a custom Enumerable collection class in Ruby )
Coffee class:
class Coffee
attr_accessor :name
attr_accessor :strength
def initialize(name, strength)
#name = name
#strength = strength
end
def <=>(other_coffee)
self.strength <=> other_coffee.strength
end
def to_s
"<name: #{name}, strength: #{strength}>"
end
end
Criteria class:
class Criteria
def initialize(klass)
#klass = klass
end
def criteria
#criteria ||= {:conditions => {}}
end
# only show coffee w/ this strength
def strength(strength)
criteria[:strength] = strength
self
end
# if there are multiple coffees, choose the first n=limit
def limit(limit)
criteria[:limit] = limit
self
end
# allow collection enumeration
def each(&block)
#klass.collection.select { |c| c[:strength] == criteria[:strength] }.each(&block)
end
end
CoffeeShop class:
class CoffeeShop
include Enumerable
def self.collection
#collection=[]
#collection << Coffee.new("Laos", 10)
#collection << Coffee.new("Angkor", 7)
#collection << Coffee.new("Nescafe", 1)
end
def self.limit(*args)
Criteria.new(self).limit(*args)
end
def self.strength(*args)
Criteria.new(self).strength(*args)
end
end
When I run this code:
CoffeeShop.strength(10).each { |c| puts c.inspect }
I get an error:
criteria.rb:32:in block in each': undefined method '[]' for #<Coffee:0x007fd25c8ec520 #name="Laos", #strength=10>
I'm certain that I haven't defined the Criteria.each method correctly, but I'm not sure how to correct it. How do I correct this?
Moreover, the each method doesn't support the limit as currently written. Is there a better way to filter the array such that it is easier to support both the strength and limit?
Other coding suggestions are appreciated.
Your Coffee class defines method accessors for name and strength. For a single coffee object, you can thus get the attributes with
coffee.name
# => "Laos"
coffee.strength
# => 10
In your Criteria#each method, you try to access the attributes using the subscript operator, i.e. c[:strength] (with c being an Instance of Coffee in this case). Now, on your Coffee class, you have not implemented the subscript accessor which resulting in the NoMethodError you see there.
You could thus either adapt your Criteria#each method as follows:
def each(&block)
#klass.collection.select { |c| c.strength == criteria[:strength] }.each(&block)
end
or you could implement the subscript operators on your Coffee class:
class Coffee
attr_accessor :name
attr_accessor :strength
# ...
def [](key)
public_send(key)
end
def []=(key, value)
public_send(:"#{key}=", value)
end
end
Noe, as an addendum, you might want to extend your each method in any case. A common (and often implicitly expected) pattern is that methods like each return an Enumerator if no block was given. This allows patterns like CoffeeShop.strength(10).each.group_by(&:strength).
You can implement this b a simple on-liner in your method:
def each(&block)
return enum_for(__method__) unless block_given?
#klass.collection.select { |c| c.strength == criteria[:strength] }.each(&block)
end
I am working on a project of context-oriented programming in ruby. And I come to this problem:
Suppose that I have a class Klass:
class Klass
def my_method
proceed
end
end
I also have a proc stored inside a variable impl. And impl contains { puts "it works!" }.
From somewhere outside Klass, I would like to define a method called proceed inside the method my_method. So that if a call Klass.new.my_method, I get the result "it works".
So the final result should be something like that:
class Klass
def my_method
def proceed
puts "it works!"
end
proceed
end
end
Or if you have any other idea to make the call of proceed inside my_method working, it's also good. But the proceed of another method (let's say my_method_2) isn't the same as my_method.
In fact, the proceed of my_method represent an old version of my_method. And the proceed of my_method_2 represent an old version of my_method_2.
Thanks for your help
Disclaimer: you are doing it wrong!
There must be more robust, elegant and rubyish way to achieve what you want. If you still want to abuse metaprogramming, here you go:
class Klass
def self.proceeds
#proceeds ||= {}
end
def def_proceed
self.class.proceeds[caller.first[/`.*?'/]] = Proc.new
end
def proceed *args
self.class.proceeds[caller.first[/`.*?'/]].(*args)
end
def m_1
def_proceed { puts 1 }
proceed
end
def m_2
def_proceed { puts 2 }
proceed
end
end
inst = Klass.new
inst.m_1
#⇒ 1
inst.m_2
#⇒ 2
What you in fact need, is Module#prepend and call super from there.
One way of doing that is to construct a hash whose keys are the names of the methods calling proceed and whose values are procs that represent the implementations of proceed for each method calling it.
class Klass
singleton_class.send(:attr_reader, :proceeds)
#proceeds = {}
def my_method1(*args)
proceed(__method__,*args)
end
def my_method2(*args)
proceed(__method__,*args)
end
def proceed(m, *args)
self.class.proceeds[m].call(*args)
end
end
def define_proceed(m, &block)
Klass.proceeds[m] = Proc.new &block
end
define_proceed(:my_method1) { |*arr| arr.sum }
define_proceed(:my_method2) { |a,b| "%s-%s" % [a,b] }
k = Klass.new
k.my_method1(1,2,3) #=> 6
k.my_method2("cat", "dog") #=> "cat-dog"
I want to create a special settings class Settings. The class should be able to handle cases when a user types something like Settings.new.method_1.method_2.method_3 and it's translated to something like:
result = nil
if ConfigurationSettings['method_1'].present?
result = ConfigurationSettings['method_1']
if result['method_2'].present?
result = result['method_2']
...
end
return result
Of course, I'll make it more flexible later so it can have more than 2/3 "methods".
I guess this is the issue you are facing:
class Settings
def abc
puts "abc"
end
def xyz
puts "xyz"
end
end
s = Settings.new
s.abc
#abc
# => nil
s.xyz
#xyz
# => nil
s.abc.xyz
#abc
#NoMethodError: undefined method `xyz' for nil:NilClass
The issue here is s.abc is returning nil and xyz is called over nil. What you are trying to achieve is called Method Chaining. Now, xyz needs an Settings object. Simplest thing to do here is:
class Settings2
def abc
puts "abc"
self
end
def xyz
puts "xyz"
self
end
end
s2 = Settings2.new
s2.abc.xyz
#abc
#xyz
method_missing is available for your use and can be used to help you solve this problem. Coupling this with method chaining and you're good to go. For example:
class Settings
def method_missing(meth)
puts "Missing #{meth}"
self
end
def test
puts "Test"
self
end
end
a = Settings.new
a.test
a.test.b
a.b.test
The trouble with the other answers is all the methods return "self" so if you want to access a nested value...
final_value = Settings.new.method_1.method_2.method_3
You're just going to get the whole settings hash instead.
Try this instead...
class Settings
class SubSettings
def initialize(sub_setting)
#sub_setting = sub_setting
end
def method_missing(method, *arguments, &block)
if #sub_setting[method].is_a?(Hash)
SubSettings.new #sub_setting[method]
else
#sub_setting[method]
end
end
def answer
#sub_setting
end
end
def initialize
#settings = ConfigurationSettings
end
def method_missing(method, *arguments, &block)
SubSettings.new #settings[method]
end
end
ConfigurationSettings = {level1a: {level2a: {level3a: "hello", level3b: "goodbye"}, level2b: {level3b: "howdy"}}}
result = Settings.new.level1a.level2a.level3b
p result
=> "goodbye"
What this does is take the initial method and takes the associated sub-hash of the ConfigurationSettings hash and stored it into a new object of class SubSettings. It applies the next method and if the result is another sub-hash it iterates to create another SubSettings, etc. It only returns the actual result when it no longer sees hashes.
Heres what I have/want:
module Observable
def observers; #observers; end
def trigger(event, *args)
good = true
return good unless (#observers ||= {})[event]
#obersvers[event].each { |e| good = false and break unless e.call(self, args) }
good
end
def on(event, &block)
#obersvers ||= {}
#obersvers[event] ||= []
#observers[event] << block
end
end
class Item < Thing
include Observable
def pickup(pickuper)
return unless trigger(:before_pick_up, pickuper)
pickuper.add_to_pocket self
trigger(:after_pick_up, pickuper)
end
def drop(droper)
return unless trigger(:before_drop, droper)
droper.remove_from_pocket self
trigger(:after_drop, droper)
end
# Lots of other methods
end
# How it all should work
Item.new.on(:before_pickup) do |item, pickuper|
puts "Hey #{pickuper} thats my #{item}"
return false # The pickuper never picks up the object
end
While starting on trying to create a game in Ruby, I thought it would be great if it could be based all around Observers and Events. The problem is have to write all of these triggers seems to be a waste, as it seems like a lot of duplicated code. I feel there must be some meta programming method out there to wrap methods with functionality.
Ideal Sceanrio:
class CustomBaseObject
class << self
### Replace with correct meta magic
def public_method_called(name, *args, &block)
return unless trigger(:before_+name.to_sym, args)
yield block
trigger(:after_+name.to_sym, args)
end
###
end
end
And then I have all of my object inherit from this Class.
I'm still new to Ruby's more advanced meta programming subjects, so any knowledge about this type of thing would be awesome.
There are a several ways to do it with the help of metaprogramming magic. For example, you can define a method like this:
def override_public_methods(c)
c.instance_methods(false).each do |m|
m = m.to_sym
c.class_eval %Q{
alias #{m}_original #{m}
def #{m}(*args, &block)
puts "Foo"
result = #{m}_original(*args, &block)
puts "Bar"
result
end
}
end
end
class CustomBaseObject
def test(a, &block)
puts "Test: #{a}"
yield
end
end
override_public_methods(CustomBaseObject)
foo = CustomBaseObject.new
foo.test(2) { puts 'Block!' }
# => Foo
Test: 2
Block!
Bar
In this case, you figure out all the required methods defined in the class by using instance_methods and then override them.
Another way is to use so-called 'hook' methods:
module Overrideable
def self.included(c)
c.instance_methods(false).each do |m|
m = m.to_sym
c.class_eval %Q{
alias #{m}_original #{m}
def #{m}(*args, &block)
puts "Foo"
result = #{m}_original(*args, &block)
puts "Bar"
result
end
}
end
end
end
class CustomBaseObject
def test(a, &block)
puts "Test: #{a}"
yield
end
include Overrideable
end
The included hook, defined in this module, is called when you include that module. This requires that you include the module at the end of the class definition, because included should know about all the already defined methods. I think it's rather ugly :)
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.