I'm trying to override a dynamically-generated method by including a module.
In the example below, a Ripple association adds a rows= method to Table. I want to call that method, but also do some additional stuff afterwards.
I created a module to override the method, thinking that the module's row= would be able to call super to use the existing method.
class Table
# Ripple association - creates rows= method
many :rows, :class_name => Table::Row
# Hacky first attempt to use the dynamically-created
# method and also do additional stuff - I would actually
# move this code elsewhere if it worked
module RowNormalizer
def rows=(*args)
rows = super
rows.map!(&:normalize_prior_year)
end
end
include RowNormalizer
end
However, my new rows= is never called, as evidenced by the fact that if I raise an exception inside it, nothing happens.
I know the module is getting included, because if I put this in it, my exception gets raised.
included do
raise 'I got included, woo!'
end
Also, if instead of rows=, the module defines somethingelse=, that method is callable.
Why isn't my module method overriding the dynamically-generated one?
Let's do an experiment:
class A; def x; 'hi' end end
module B; def x; super + ' john' end end
A.class_eval { include B }
A.new.x
=> "hi" # oops
Why is that? The answer is simple:
A.ancestors
=> [A, B, Object, Kernel, BasicObject]
B is before A in the ancestors chain (you can think of this as B being inside A). Therefore A.x always takes priority over B.x.
However, this can be worked around:
class A
def x
'hi'
end
end
module B
# Define a method with a different name
def x_after
x_before + ' john'
end
# And set up aliases on the inclusion :)
# We can use `alias new_name old_name`
def self.included(klass)
klass.class_eval {
alias :x_before :x
alias :x :x_after
}
end
end
A.class_eval { include B }
A.new.x #=> "hi john"
With ActiveSupport (and therefore Rails) you have this pattern implemented as alias_method_chain(target, feature) http://apidock.com/rails/Module/alias_method_chain:
module B
def self.included(base)
base.alias_method_chain :x, :feature
end
def x_with_feature
x_without_feature + " John"
end
end
Update Ruby 2 comes with Module#prepend, which does override the methods of A, making this alias hack unnecessary for most use cases.
Why isn't my module method overriding the dynamically-generated one?
Because that's not how inheritance works. Methods defined in a class override the ones inherited from other classes/modules, not the other way around.
In Ruby 2.0, there's Module#prepend, which works just like Module#include, except it inserts the module as a subclass instead of a superclass in the inheritance chain.
If you extend the instance of the class, you will can do it.
class A
def initialize
extend(B)
end
def hi
'hi'
end
end
module B
def hi
super[0,1] + 'ello'
end
end
obj = A.new
obj.hi #=> 'hello'
Related
I have a module
module A
class << self
def is_okay?; false; end
end
end
and I need to overwrite is_okay? method in another module. Module B is included into A in this way
A.send(:include, B)
I have tried this
module B
class << self
def is_okay?; true; end
end
end
and that
module B
def self.is_okay?; true; end
end
but it didn't work. How can I achieve this?
This may or may not work in your situation:
module B
def is_okay?
true
end
end
module A
class << self
prepend B
def is_okay?
false
end
end
end
prepend is similar to include, but inserts itself before the class, at the "bottom" of the ancestor chain.
EDIT:
Since you clarified in your comments below (I would suggest clarifying your original question), you can alias the same as any other method.
module A
class << self
alias original_is_okay? is_okay?
def is_okay?
true
end
end
end
This will allow for "overwriting it, whether or not you have access to it.
Consider the following.
module B
def bi
"hello from bi"
end
def self.bm
"hello from bm"
end
end
B.instance_methods(false)
#=> [:bi]
B.methods(false)
#=> [:bm]
Note that defining a module method (here bm) with self. is the same as defining an instance method on the module's singleton class.
Now create a module A that includes B.
module A
def self.am
"hello from am"
end
end
A.methods(false)
#=> [:am]
A.include B
A.instance_methods.include?(:bi)
#=> true
A.methods.include?(:bm)
#=> false
As expected, bi is now an instance method of A. include, however, disregards module methods, here B::bm. Is there any way for the module method B::m to become a module method of A? The answer is "no". In effect, we want
A.singleton_class.include B.singleton_class
but that doesn't work because B.singleton_class is a class.
Module#include does not make it clear whether a module (that is possibly a class) can include a class. Try it, however, and you will see the following an exception is raised:
TypeError (wrong argument type Class (expected Module))
If module methods of a module M are not made available to another module that includes M, is there any reason for modules to have module methods? Yes, to provide libraries of methods! An example is the module Math. That module contains many module methods and no instance methods. When used, those methods are therefore invoked on their receiver, Math. For example,
Math.sin(x)
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
After reading the answer by jvans below and looking at the source code a few more time I get it now :). And in case anyone is still wondering how exactly rails delegates works. All rails is doing is creating a new method with (module_eval) in the file/class that you ran the delegate method from.
So for example:
class A
delegate :hello, :to => :b
end
class B
def hello
p hello
end
end
At the point when delegate is called rails will create a hello method with (*args, &block) in class A (technically in the file that class A is written in) and in that method all rails do is uses the ":to" value(which should be an object or a Class that is already defined within the class A) and assign it to a local variable _, then just calls the method on that object or Class passing in the params.
So in order for delegate to work without raising an exception... with our previous example. An instance of A must already have a instance variable referencing to an instance of class B.
class A
attr_accessor :b
def b
#b ||= B.new
end
delegate :hello, :to => :b
end
class B
def hello
p hello
end
end
This is not a question on "how to use the delegate method in rails", which I already know. I'm wondering how exactly "delegate" delegates methods :D. In Rails 4 source code delegate is defined in the core Ruby Module class, which makes it available as a class method in all rails app.
Actually my first question would be how is Ruby's Module class included? I mean every Ruby class has ancestors of > Object > Kernel > BasicObject and any module in ruby has the same ancestors. So how exactly how does ruby add methods to all ruby class/modules when someone reopens the Module class?
My second question is.. I understand that the delegate method in rails uses module_eval do the actual delegation but I don't really understand how module_eval works.
def delegate(*methods)
options = methods.pop
unless options.is_a?(Hash) && to = options[:to]
raise ArgumentError, 'Delegation needs a target. Supply an options hash with a :to key as the last argument (e.g. delegate :hello, to: :greeter).'
end
prefix, allow_nil = options.values_at(:prefix, :allow_nil)
if prefix == true && to =~ /^[^a-z_]/
raise ArgumentError, 'Can only automatically set the delegation prefix when delegating to a method.'
end
method_prefix = \
if prefix
"#{prefix == true ? to : prefix}_"
else
''
end
file, line = caller.first.split(':', 2)
line = line.to_i
to = to.to_s
to = 'self.class' if to == 'class'
methods.each do |method|
# Attribute writer methods only accept one argument. Makes sure []=
# methods still accept two arguments.
definition = (method =~ /[^\]]=$/) ? 'arg' : '*args, &block'
# The following generated methods call the target exactly once, storing
# the returned value in a dummy variable.
#
# Reason is twofold: On one hand doing less calls is in general better.
# On the other hand it could be that the target has side-effects,
# whereas conceptually, from the user point of view, the delegator should
# be doing one call.
if allow_nil
module_eval(<<-EOS, file, line - 3)
def #{method_prefix}#{method}(#{definition}) # def customer_name(*args, &block)
_ = #{to} # _ = client
if !_.nil? || nil.respond_to?(:#{method}) # if !_.nil? || nil.respond_to?(:name)
_.#{method}(#{definition}) # _.name(*args, &block)
end # end
end # end
EOS
else
exception = %(raise DelegationError, "#{self}##{method_prefix}#{method} delegated to #{to}.#{method}, but #{to} is nil: \#{self.inspect}")
module_eval(<<-EOS, file, line - 2)
def #{method_prefix}#{method}(#{definition}) # def customer_name(*args, &block)
_ = #{to} # _ = client
_.#{method}(#{definition}) # _.name(*args, &block)
rescue NoMethodError => e # rescue NoMethodError => e
if _.nil? && e.name == :#{method} # if _.nil? && e.name == :name
#{exception} # # add helpful message to the exception
else # else
raise # raise
end # end
end # end
EOS
end
end
end
Ruby isn't reopening the module class here. In ruby the class Module and the class Class are almost identical.
Class.instance_methods - Module.instance_methods #=> [:allocate, :new, :superclass]
The main difference is that you can't 'new' a module.
Module's are ruby's version of multiple inheritance so when you do:
module A
end
module B
end
class C
include A
include B
end
behind the scenes ruby is actually creating something called an anonymous class. so the above is actually equivalent to:
class A
end
class B < A
end
class C < B
end
module_eval here is a little deceptive. Nothing from the code you're looking at is dealing with modules. class_eval and module_eval are the same thing and they just reopen the class that they're called on so if you want to add methods to a class C you can do:
C.class_eval do
def my_new_method
end
end
or
C.module_eval do
def my_new_method
end
end
both of which are equivalent to manually reopening the class and defining the method
class C
end
class C
def my_new_method
end
end
so when they're calling module_eval in the source above, they're just reopening the current class it's being called it and dynamically defining the methods that you're delegating
I think this will answer your question better:
Class.ancestors #=> [Module, Object, PP::ObjectMixin, Kernel, BasicObject]
since everything in ruby is a class, the method lookup chain will go through all of these objects until it finds what it's looking for. By reoping module you add behavior to everything. The ancestor chain here is a little deceptive, since BasicObject.class #=> Class and Module is in Class's lookup hierarchy, even BasicObject inherits behavior from repening module. The advantage of reopening Module here over Class is that you can now call this method from within a module as well as within a class! Very cool, learned something here myself.
After reading the answer by jvans below and looking at the source code a few more time I get it now :). And in case anyone is still wondering how exactly rails delegates works. All rails is doing is creating a new method with (module_eval) in the file/class that you ran the delegate method from.
So for example:
class A
delegate :hello, :to => :b
end
class B
def hello
p hello
end
end
At the point when delegate is called rails will create a hello method with (*args, &block) in class A (technically in the file that class A is written in) and in that method all rails do is uses the ":to" value(which should be an object or a Class that is already defined within the class A) and assign it to a local variable _, then just calls the method on that object or Class passing in the params.
So in order for delegate to work without raising an exception... with our previous example. An instance of A must already have a instance variable referencing to an instance of class B.
class A
attr_accessor :b
def b
#b ||= B.new
end
delegate :hello, :to => :b
end
class B
def hello
p hello
end
end
Say, I have the following 2 classes:
class A
def a_method
end
end
class B < A
end
Is it possible to detect from within (an instance of) class B that method a_method is only defined in the superclass, thus not being overridden in B?
Update: the solution
While I have marked the answer of Chuck as "accepted", later Paolo Perrota made me realize that the solution can apparently be simpler, and it will probably work with earlier versions of Ruby, too.
Detecting if "a_method" is overridden in B:
B.instance_methods(false).include?("a_method")
And for class methods we use singleton_methods similarly:
B.singleton_methods(false).include?("a_class_method")
If you're using Ruby 1.8.7 or above, it's easy with Method#owner/UnboundMethod#owner.
class Module
def implements_instance_method(method_name)
instance_method(method_name).owner == self
rescue NameError
false
end
end
class A
def m1; end
def m2; end
end
class B < A
def m1; end
def m3; end
end
obj = B.new
methods_in_class = obj.class.instance_methods(false) # => ["m1", "m3"]
methods_in_superclass = obj.class.superclass.instance_methods(false) # => ["m2", "m1"]
methods_in_superclass - methods_in_class # => ["m2"]
you can always to the following and see if its defined there:
a = A.new
a.methods.include?(:method)
Given an object b which is an instance of B, you can test to see whether b's immediate superclass has a_method:
b.class.superclass.instance_methods.include? 'a_method'
Notice that the test is against the method name, not a symbol or a method object.
"thus not being overridden in B" - Just knowing that the method is only defined in A is difficult because you can define the method on an individual instances of A and B... so I think it's going to be difficult to test that a_method is only defined on A, because you'd have to round up all the subclasses and subinstances in the system and test them...
Background:
I have a module which declares a number of instance methods
module UsefulThings
def get_file; ...
def delete_file; ...
def format_text(x); ...
end
And I want to call some of these methods from within a class. How you normally do this in ruby is like this:
class UsefulWorker
include UsefulThings
def do_work
format_text("abc")
...
end
end
Problem
include UsefulThings brings in all of the methods from UsefulThings. In this case I only want format_text and explicitly do not want get_file and delete_file.
I can see several possible solutions to this:
Somehow invoke the method directly on the module without including it anywhere
I don't know how/if this can be done. (Hence this question)
Somehow include Usefulthings and only bring in some of it's methods
I also don't know how/if this can be done
Create a proxy class, include UsefulThings in that, then delegate format_text to that proxy instance
This would work, but anonymous proxy classes are a hack. Yuck.
Split up the module into 2 or more smaller modules
This would also work, and is probably the best solution I can think of, but I'd prefer to avoid it as I'd end up with a proliferation of dozens and dozens of modules - managing this would be burdensome
Why are there lots of unrelated functions in a single module? It's ApplicationHelper from a rails app, which our team has de-facto decided on as the dumping ground for anything not specific enough to belong anywhere else. Mostly standalone utility methods that get used everywhere. I could break it up into seperate helpers, but there'd be 30 of them, all with 1 method each... this seems unproductive
I think the shortest way to do just throw-away single call (without altering existing modules or creating new ones) would be as follows:
Class.new.extend(UsefulThings).get_file
If a method on a module is turned into a module function you can simply call it off of Mods as if it had been declared as
module Mods
def self.foo
puts "Mods.foo(self)"
end
end
The module_function approach below will avoid breaking any classes which include all of Mods.
module Mods
def foo
puts "Mods.foo"
end
end
class Includer
include Mods
end
Includer.new.foo
Mods.module_eval do
module_function(:foo)
public :foo
end
Includer.new.foo # this would break without public :foo above
class Thing
def bar
Mods.foo
end
end
Thing.new.bar
However, I'm curious why a set of unrelated functions are all contained within the same module in the first place?
Edited to show that includes still work if public :foo is called after module_function :foo
Another way to do it if you "own" the module is to use module_function.
module UsefulThings
def a
puts "aaay"
end
module_function :a
def b
puts "beee"
end
end
def test
UsefulThings.a
UsefulThings.b # Fails! Not a module method
end
test
If you want to call these methods without including module in another class then you need to define them as module methods:
module UsefulThings
def self.get_file; ...
def self.delete_file; ...
def self.format_text(x); ...
end
and then you can call them with
UsefulThings.format_text("xxx")
or
UsefulThings::format_text("xxx")
But anyway I would recommend that you put just related methods in one module or in one class. If you have problem that you want to include just one method from module then it sounds like a bad code smell and it is not good Ruby style to put unrelated methods together.
To invoke a module instance method without including the module (and without creating intermediary objects):
class UsefulWorker
def do_work
UsefulThings.instance_method(:format_text).bind(self).call("abc")
...
end
end
Not sure if someone still needs it after 10 years but I solved it using eigenclass.
module UsefulThings
def useful_thing_1
"thing_1"
end
class << self
include UsefulThings
end
end
class A
include UsefulThings
end
class B
extend UsefulThings
end
UsefulThings.useful_thing_1 # => "thing_1"
A.new.useful_thing_1 # => "thing_1"
B.useful_thing_1 # => "thing_1"
Firstly, I'd recommend breaking the module up into the useful things you need. But you can always create a class extending that for your invocation:
module UsefulThings
def a
puts "aaay"
end
def b
puts "beee"
end
end
def test
ob = Class.new.send(:include, UsefulThings).new
ob.a
end
test
A. In case you, always want to call them in a "qualified", standalone way (UsefulThings.get_file), then just make them static as others pointed out,
module UsefulThings
def self.get_file; ...
def self.delete_file; ...
def self.format_text(x); ...
# Or.. make all of the "static"
class << self
def write_file; ...
def commit_file; ...
end
end
B. If you still want to keep the mixin approach in same cases, as well the one-off standalone invocation, you can have a one-liner module that extends itself with the mixin:
module UsefulThingsMixin
def get_file; ...
def delete_file; ...
def format_text(x); ...
end
module UsefulThings
extend UsefulThingsMixin
end
So both works then:
UsefulThings.get_file() # one off
class MyUser
include UsefulThingsMixin
def f
format_text # all useful things available directly
end
end
IMHO it's cleaner than module_function for every single method - in case want all of them.
As I understand the question, you want to mix some of a module's instance methods into a class.
Let's begin by considering how Module#include works. Suppose we have a module UsefulThings that contains two instance methods:
module UsefulThings
def add1
self + 1
end
def add3
self + 3
end
end
UsefulThings.instance_methods
#=> [:add1, :add3]
and Fixnum includes that module:
class Fixnum
def add2
puts "cat"
end
def add3
puts "dog"
end
include UsefulThings
end
We see that:
Fixnum.instance_methods.select { |m| m.to_s.start_with? "add" }
#=> [:add2, :add3, :add1]
1.add1
2
1.add2
cat
1.add3
dog
Were you expecting UsefulThings#add3 to override Fixnum#add3, so that 1.add3 would return 4? Consider this:
Fixnum.ancestors
#=> [Fixnum, UsefulThings, Integer, Numeric, Comparable,
# Object, Kernel, BasicObject]
When the class includes the module, the module becomes the class' superclass. So, because of how inheritance works, sending add3 to an instance of Fixnum will cause Fixnum#add3 to be invoked, returning dog.
Now let's add a method :add2 to UsefulThings:
module UsefulThings
def add1
self + 1
end
def add2
self + 2
end
def add3
self + 3
end
end
We now wish Fixnum to include only the methods add1 and add3. Is so doing, we expect to get the same results as above.
Suppose, as above, we execute:
class Fixnum
def add2
puts "cat"
end
def add3
puts "dog"
end
include UsefulThings
end
What is the result? The unwanted method :add2 is added to Fixnum, :add1 is added and, for reasons I explained above, :add3 is not added. So all we have to do is undef :add2. We can do that with a simple helper method:
module Helpers
def self.include_some(mod, klass, *args)
klass.send(:include, mod)
(mod.instance_methods - args - klass.instance_methods).each do |m|
klass.send(:undef_method, m)
end
end
end
which we invoke like this:
class Fixnum
def add2
puts "cat"
end
def add3
puts "dog"
end
Helpers.include_some(UsefulThings, self, :add1, :add3)
end
Then:
Fixnum.instance_methods.select { |m| m.to_s.start_with? "add" }
#=> [:add2, :add3, :add1]
1.add1
2
1.add2
cat
1.add3
dog
which is the result we want.
After almost 9 years here's a generic solution:
module CreateModuleFunctions
def self.included(base)
base.instance_methods.each do |method|
base.module_eval do
module_function(method)
public(method)
end
end
end
end
RSpec.describe CreateModuleFunctions do
context "when included into a Module" do
it "makes the Module's methods invokable via the Module" do
module ModuleIncluded
def instance_method_1;end
def instance_method_2;end
include CreateModuleFunctions
end
expect { ModuleIncluded.instance_method_1 }.to_not raise_error
end
end
end
The unfortunate trick you need to apply is to include the module after the methods have been defined. Alternatively you may also include it after the context is defined as ModuleIncluded.send(:include, CreateModuleFunctions).
Or you can use it via the reflection_utils gem.
spec.add_dependency "reflection_utils", ">= 0.3.0"
require 'reflection_utils'
include ReflectionUtils::CreateModuleFunctions
This old question comes to me today when I am studing Ruby and found interesting so I want to answer with my new knowlege.
Assume that you have the module
module MyModule
def say
'I say'
end
def cheer
'I cheer'
end
end
then with the class so call Animal I can take cheer method from MyModule as following
class Animal
define_method(:happy, MyModule.method(:cheer))
end
This is so called unbound method, so you can take a callable object and bind it to another place(s).
From this point, you can use the method as usual, such as
my_dog = Animal.new
my_dog.happy # => "I cheer"
Hope this help as I also learned something new today.
To learn further, you can use irb and take a look at Method object.