In the following code,
module Test
#connection = nil
def self.included?(base)
#connection = base
end
def print
puts #connection
end
end
class ModuleTest
include Test
end
m = ModuleTest.new
m.print
why is #connection nil when printing?
When you run print, it prints the instance variable #connection of an instance of ModuleTest. You have two other places in your code referring to #connection, but those point to the instance variable #connection of the instance ModuleTest of the Class class, and are a different thing.
Furthermore, even the latter #connection (the one for ModuleTest class) does not get its value base until you do included?.
The instance variable for the instance of ModuleTest created is thus initialized to nil by default when called by puts within print.
Almost right, with a couple of tweaks it works:
module Test
def self.included(base)
##connection = base
end
def print
puts ##connection
end
end
class ModuleTest
include Test
end
ModuleTest.new.print
Issues:
the callback is included without a ?.
in class methods, it makes more sense to use class variables than instance variables
Related
Sorry that I have no clue how to title this, I'm having a hard time looking this up because I don't know how to say this. Anyway...
Let's say I have a class that looks like this for example:
class Run
def self.starting
print "starting..."
end
def self.finished
print "Finished!"
end
end
All of the methods in Run have self before them, meaning that I don't have to do run = Run.new and I can just do Run.starting. Now let's say that I wanted to add some instance variables...
class Run
attr_accessor :starting, :finished
def self.starting
print "starting..."
#starting = true
#finished = false
end
def self.finished
print "finished!"
#starting = false
#finished = true
end
end
What if I wanted to access those instance variables from outside the class? I know that something like print "#{Run.finished}" or print "#{Run.starting}" won't do anything. Can I do that without run = Run.new? Or should I just remove self and then use run = Run.new? (Sorry if this question is a mess.)
All of the methods in Run have self before them, meaning that I don't have to do run = Run.new and I can just do Run.starting
There's much more to it than this. In your case you're calling class methods. If you did runner = Runner.new - then you'd be calling instance methods (those are defined without self.
In general, if you need "the thing" to hold some kind of state (like #running = true) then you'd rather want to instantiate an object, and call those methods.
Now, #whatever are instance variables, and you don't have the access to them in class methods.
class Run
attr_reader :running
def start
#running = true
end
def stop
#running = false
end
end
runner = Run.new
runner.running # nil
runner.start
runner.running # true
runner.stop
runner.running # false
I'd recommend you doing some tutorial or basic level book on rails programming, find a chapter about objects and classes. Do some exercises.
In Ruby instance variables are just lexical variables scoped to an instance of a class. Since they are scoped to the instance they always act like a private variable.
If you want to provide access to an instance variable from the outside you create setter and getter methods. Thats what attr_accessor does.
class Person
attr_accessor :name
def initialize(name:)
#name = name
end
def hello
"Hello my name is #{#name}"
end
end
john = Person.new(name: 'John')
john.name = "John Smith"
puts john.hello # "Hello my name is John Smith"
puts john.name # "John Smith"
Methods defined with def self.foo are class methods which are also referred to as singleton methods. You can't access variables belonging to an instance from inside a class method since the recipient when calling the method is the class itself and not an instance of the class.
Ruby also has class variables which are shared by a class and its subclasses:
class Person
##count = 0
def initialize
self.class.count += 1
end
def self.count
##count
end
def self.count=(value)
##count = value
end
end
class Student < Person
end
Person.new
Student.new
puts Person.count # 2 - wtf!
And class instance variables that are not shared with subclasses:
class Person
#count = 0 # sets an instance variable in the eigenclass
def initialize
self.class.count += 1
end
def self.count
#count
end
def self.count=(value)
#count = value
end
end
class Student < Person
#count = 0 # sets its own class instance variable
end
Person.new
Student.new
puts Person.count # 1
Class variables are not used as often and usually hold references to things like database connections or configuration which is shared by all instances of a class.
You can't access instance variables from outside the instance. That is the whole point of instance variables.
The only thing you can access from outside the instance are (public) methods.
However, you can create a public method that returns the instance variable. Such a method is called an attribute reader in Ruby, other languages may call it a getter. In Ruby, an attribute reader is typically named the same as the instance variable, but in your case that is not possible since there are already methods with the names starting and finished. Therefore, we have to find some other names for the attribute readers:
class Run
def self.starting?
#starting
end
def self.finished?
#finished
end
end
Since this is a common operation, there are helper methods which generate those methods for you, for example Module#attr_reader. However, they also assume that the name of the attribute reader method is the same as the name of the instance variable, so if you were to use this helper method, it would overwrite the methods you have already written!
class << Run
attr_reader :starting, :finished
end
When you do this, you will get warnings (you always have warning turned on when developing, do you?) telling you that you have overwritten your existing methods:
run.rb:19: warning: method redefined; discarding old starting
run.rb:2: warning: previous definition of starting was here
run.rb:19: warning: method redefined; discarding old finished
run.rb:5: warning: previous definition of finished was here
Here is my code:
class Klass
["thing", nil].each do |i|
instance_variable_set("##{i}reqs", {})
end
def initialize(var)
#reqs[var] = self
end
end
Klass.new("hello")
Which gives me the error:
in initialize': undefined method[]=' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
I shouldn't be getting this error because the loop at the top should have initialized #reqs in it's second iteration. What is going on?
Instance variables belong to particular instances. That's why they are called instance variables.
In line 3, you set the instance variable called #reqs of the object Klass. In line 6, you access the instance variable called #reqs of an instance of the class Klass. Those are two completely different, distinct objects each with its own set of instance variables. Heck, those two objects don't even have the same class! (Klass's class is Class, whereas Klass.new's class is Klass.)
In line 6, #reqs is uninitialized, and uninitialized instance variables evaluate to nil.
There are many different ways to fix this, depending on your exact circumstances and requirements, the easiest way would be to initialize the instance variables in the initialize method, after all, that's what that method is there for:
class Klass
def initialize(var)
['thing', nil].each do |i|
instance_variable_set(:"##{i}reqs", {})
end
#reqs[var] = self
end
end
Klass.new('hello')
Remember, the problem was that the instance variables were initialized in one object, and accessed in another. This solution moves the initialization to the same object that was doing the reading.
However, the dual is also possible: move the reading to where the initialized variables are:
class Klass
['thing', nil].each do |i|
instance_variable_set(:"##{i}reqs", {})
end
def initialize(var)
self.class.instance_variable_get(:#reqs)[var] = self
end
end
Klass.new('hello')
This is kind of ugly, so let's add an attr_reader:
class Klass
['thing', nil].each do |i|
instance_variable_set(:"##{i}reqs", {})
end
class << self; attr_reader :reqs end
def initialize(var)
self.class.reqs[var] = self
end
end
Klass.new('hello')
Obviously, these two do very different things. It is unclear from your question which of the two you actually want.
A third possibility would be using class variables:
class Klass
['thing', nil].each do |i|
class_variable_set(:"###{i}reqs", {})
end
def initialize(var)
##reqs[var] = self
end
end
Klass.new('hello')
Note that this does yet another different thing. Again, whether you want that or not is not clear from your question.
The loop at the top is defining an instance variable for the Class, not for any object of the class.
So for the object, it doesn't exist.
From the looks of it, you want a hash common to the whole class where you store each created object in the hash. Assuming you don't have issues with class inheritance, you'd be better of with a class variable.
so...
class Klass
["thing",nil].each do |i|
class_variable_set("###{i}reqs", {})
end
def initialize(var)
##reqs[var] = self
end
end
Klass.new("hello")
If you define class like this:
class Klass
instance_variable_set(:#name, 'dog')
def self.name
#name
end
def name
#name
end
end
then
Klass.name # => 'dog'
instance = Klass.new
instance.name # => nil
Now you can see the difference. Your variable is defined on class level, not instance level.
I'm trying to use ruby's forwardable module to make some variables in one class accessible to another class. However I am having some trouble doing this.
It seems that I'm able to 'forward' some variables within the self (first bit of code) but I'm unable to forward some variable within a class (second bit of code)
The following works:
require 'forwardable'
module ModuleName
#
class << self
attr_accessor :config
def run
#config = {hey: 'hi', jay: 'ji'}
puts "1) Config = #{config}"
end
end
#
class Start
extend Forwardable
def_delegators ModuleName, :config
def run
puts "2) Config = #{config}"
end
end
end
ModuleName.run
(ModuleName::Start.new).run
#=> 1) Config = {:hey=>"hi", :jay=>"ji"}
#=> 2) Config = {:hey=>"hi", :jay=>"ji"}
BUT this doesn't
require 'forwardable'
module ModuleName
#
class Data
attr_accessor :config
def run
#config = {hey: 'hi', jay: 'ji'}
puts "1) Config = #{config}"
end
end
#
class Start
extend Forwardable
def_delegators ModuleName::Data, :config
def run
puts "2) Config = #{config}"
end
end
end
(ModuleName::Data.new).run
(ModuleName::Start.new).run
#=> 1) Config = {:hey=>"hi", :jay=>"ji"}
#=> /Users/ismailm/Desktop/ex.rb:17:in `run': undefined method `config' for ModuleName::Data:Class (NoMethodError)
Can you help in fixing this part of the code...
Typically when you delegate between two classes, one object contains an instance of the other. The fact that you call (ModuleName::Data.new).run implies to me that is what you are trying to do, but are somehow missing the fact that you need an instance of the contained class to be stored somewhere in order to receive the call to :config
This variation of your second piece of code is closer to what I would expect to see in a delegation scenario:
require 'forwardable'
module ModuleName
#
class Data
attr_accessor :config
def initialize
#config = {hey: 'hi', jay: 'ji'}
end
def run
puts "1) Config = #{config}"
end
end
#
class Start
extend Forwardable
def initialize data_obj = Data.new()
#data = data_obj
end
def_delegators :#data, :config
def run
puts "2) Config = #{config}"
end
end
end
(ModuleName::Data.new).run
(ModuleName::Start.new).run
I changed the constructor to ModuleName::Start in order to show a common pattern, not used here. Namely, you often pass in the wrapped object, or even more commonly the params that allow you to construct a new one and assign it to the instance variable that you wish to delegate to.
A minor related change: In your original code, the value of #config was only set via calling :run, so delegating direct to :config won't read the value you expect in the test. It worked in the first version because #config was set in the first call to run on the module, and then read globally as a singleton method on the second delegated call. I have worked around that here by setting it in Datas constructor, but of course anything that sets the value of #config on the instance you are delegating to would work.
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 am trying to build a simple little template parser for self-learning purposes.
How do I build something "modular" and share data across it? The data doesn't need to be accessible from outside, it's just internal data. Here's what I have:
# template_parser.rb
module TemplateParser
attr_accessor :html
attr_accessor :test_value
class Base
def initialize(html)
#html = html
#test_value = "foo"
end
def parse!
#html.css('a').each do |node|
::TemplateParser::Tag:ATag.substitute! node
end
end
end
end
# template_parser/tag/a_tag.rb
module TemplateParser
module Tag
class ATag
def self.substitute!(node)
# I want to access +test_value+ from +TemplateParser+
node = #test_value # => nil
end
end
end
end
Edit based on Phrogz' comment
I am currently thinking about something like:
p = TemplateParser.new(html, *args) # or TemplateParser::Base.new(html, *args)
p.append_css(file_or_string)
parsed_html = p.parse!
There shouldn't be much exposed methods because the parser should solve a non-general problem and is not portable. At least not at this early stage. What I've tried is to peek a bit from Nokogiri about the structure.
With the example code you've given, I'd recommend using composition to pass in an instance of TemplateParser::Base to the parse! method like so:
# in TemplateParser::Base#parse!
::TemplateParser::Tag::ATag.substitute! node, self
# TemplateParser::Tag::ATag
def self.substitute!(node, obj)
node = obj.test_value
end
You will also need to move the attr_accessor calls into the Base class for this to work.
module TemplateParser
class Base
attr_accessor :html
attr_accessor :test_value
# ...
end
end
Any other way I can think of right now of accessing test_value will be fairly convoluted considering the fact that parse! is a class method trying to access a different class instance's attribute.
The above assumes #test_value needs to be unique per TemplateParser::Base instance. If that's not the case, you could simplify the process by using a class or module instance variable.
module TemplateParser
class Base
#test_value = "foo"
class << self
attr_accessor :test_value
end
# ...
end
end
# OR
module TemplateParser
#test_value = "foo"
class << self
attr_accessor :test_value
end
class Base
# ...
end
end
Then set or retrieve the value with TemplateParser::Base.test_value OR TemplateParser.test_value depending on implementation.
Also, to perhaps state the obvious, I'm assuming your pseudo-code you've included here doesn't accurately reflect your real application code. If it does, then the substitute! method is a very round about way to achieve simple assignment. Just use node = test_value inside TemplateParser::Base#parse! and skip the round trip. I'm sure you know this, but it seemed worth mentioning at least...