I have a BaseClass and two classes (Volume and testing) which inherits from the BaseClass. The class "Volume" use a method "driving_style" from another python module. I am trying to write another method "test_Score" which wants to access variables computed in the method "driving_style" which I want to use to compute further. These results will be accessed to the class "testing" as shown.
from training import Accuracy
import ComputeData
import model
class BaseClass(object):
def __init__(self, connections):
self.Type = 'Stock'
self.A = connections.A
self.log = self.B.log
def getIDs(self, assets):
ids = pandas.Series(assets.ids, index=assets.B)
return ids
class Volume(BaseClass):
def __init__(self, connections):
BaseClass.__init__(self, connections)
self.daystrade = 30
self.high_low = True
def learning(self, data, rootClass):
params.daystrade = self.daystrade
params.high_low = self.high_low
style = Accuracy.driving_style()
return self.Object(data.universe, style)
class testing(BaseClass):
def __init__(self, connections):
BaseClass.__init__(self, connections)
def learning(self, data, rootClass):
test_score = Accuracy.test_score()
return self.Object(data.universe, test_score)
def driving_style(date, modelDays, params):
daystrade = params.daystrade
high_low = params.high_low
DriveDays = model.DateRange(date, params.daystrade)
StopBy = ComputeData.instability(DriveDays)
if high_low:
style = ma.average(StopBy)
else:
style = ma.mean(StopBy)
return style
def test_score(date, modelDays, params):
"want to access the following from the method driving_style:"
DriveDays =
StopBy =
return test_score ("which i compute using values DriveDays and StopBy and use test_score in the method learning inside
the 'class - testing' which inherits some params from the BaseClass")
You can't use locals from a call to a function that was made elsewhere and has already returned.
A bad solution is to store them as globals that you can read from later (but that get replaced on every new call). A better solution might to return the relevant info to the caller along with the existing return values (return style, DriveDays, StopBy) and somehow get it to where it needs to go. If necessary, you could wrap the function into a class and store the computed values as attributes on an instance of the class, while keeping the return type the same.
But the best solution is probably to refactor, so the stuff you want is computed by dedicated methods that you can call directly from test_score and driving_style independently, without duplicating code or creating complicated state dependencies.
In short, basically any time you think you need to access locals from another function, you're almost certainly experiencing an XY problem.
Related
I am running multiple scenarios for my experiment, which requires me to dynamically change the variable names depending upon the Scenario and Class. For that, I have got a few lines of working code, where changing simulations (i.e., Scenario and Class) changes the variable names. However, this code needs to be called everytime after I define my experiment. Code below:
# Funtion
def Moisture_transport(Scenario, Class, delta_crop):
""" (unrelated to this question) """
return Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr
""" Define the Scenario and Class """
Scenario = 2; Class = 1; delta_crop = True # Assign the Scenario, Class and delta_crop
## Few lines of code that needs to run every time without any change
if delta_crop == False:
vars()['Moisture_direct_Scenario_'+str(Scenario)+'_Class_'+str(Class)], vars()['Moisture_with_CMR_Scenario_'+str(Scenario)+'_Class_'+str(Class)] = Moisture_transport(Scenario, Class, delta_crop)
else:
vars()['Moisture_direct_Scenario_'+str(Scenario)+'_Class_'+str(Class)+'_deltacrop'], vars()['Moisture_with_CMR_Scenario_'+str(Scenario)+'_Class_'+str(Class)+'_deltacrop'] = Moisture_transport(Scenario, Class, delta_crop)
Does any one know how to make vars()['variable_name'] global in the function Moisture_transport?
I think this can be simpler still. There is some cost to handling a key so I'd not make them excessively long. Please note the global, where it is and is not used.
Moisture_variables = {}
def Moisture_transport(Scenario, Class, delta_crop):
global Moisture_variables
""" (unrelated to this question) """
#return Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr
Moisture_variables[f"{Scenario} {Class} {delta_crop}"] = (Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr)
You can also sub-dictionary the results although this creates a bit of overhead to checking if sub-dictionaries exist. Note I've deliberately changed (shortened) the variables in the called function to make it clear these are in a different scope.
Moisture_variables = {}
def Moisture_transport(Scenario, Class, delta_crop):
""" (unrelated to this question) """
#return Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr
add_Moisture_Variables(Scenario, Class, delta_crop, Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr)
def add_Moisture_variables(s, c, d, cd, cs):
global Moisture_variables
if s not in Moisture_variables:
Moisture_variables[s] = {}
if c not in Moisture_variables[s]:
Moisture_variables[s][c] = {}
Moisture_variables[s][c][d] = (cd, cs)
Yet another approach if a list works, the double bracket to append a tuple are important.
Moisture_variables = []
def Moisture_transport(Scenario, Class, delta_crop):
global Moisture_variables
""" (unrelated to this question) """
#return Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr
Moisture_variables.append((Scenario, Class, delta_crop, Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr))
The choice of which approach works best depends on how you wish to recover the data.
Defining a dictionary is more efficient in the following case to hold all the variables as string, which can be called with conditions, i.e., Scenario or Class.
#Add a last line to the original function
def Moisture_transport(Scenario, Class, delta_crop):
""" (unrelated to this question) """
#return Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr
variables_dict(Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr,delta_crop)
#Add a normal dictionary and a variable name defining funtion
Moisture_variables = {}
def variables_dict(Class_direct, Class_sum_cmr, delta_crop):
if delta_crop == False:
Moisture_variables['Moisture_direct_Scenario_{0}_Class_{1}'.format(Scenario,Class)] = Class_direct
Moisture_variables['Moisture_with_CMR_Scenario_{0}_Class_{1}'.format(Scenario,Class)] = Class_sum_cmr
else:
Moisture_variables['Moisture_direct_Scenario_{0}_Class_{1}_deltacrop'.format(Scenario,Class)] = Class_direct
Moisture_variables['Moisture_with_CMR_Scenario_{0}_Class_{1}_deltacrop'.format(Scenario,Class)] = Class_sum_cmr
After that, you can run the function Moisture_transport() as it is, and not worry about defining the variables outside the function, i.e., code after ## Few lines of code that needs to run every time without any change from the original question is not needed. E.g.:
""" Define the Scenario and Class """
Scenario = 1; Class = 0; delta_crop = False
Moisture_transport(Scenario, Class, delta_crop)
So I am getting used to working with OOP in python, it has been a bumpy road but so far things seem to be working. I have, however hit a snag and i cannot seem to figure this out. here is the premise.
I call a class and pass 2 variables to it, a report and location. From there, I need to take the location variable, pass it to a database and get a list of filters it is supposed to run through, and this is done through a dictionary call. Finally, once that dictionary call happens, i need to take that report and run it through the filters. here is the code i have.
class Filters(object):
def __init__ (self, report, location):
self.report = report
self.location = location
def get_location(self):
return self.location
def run(self):
cursor = con.cursor()
filters = cursor.execute(filterqry).fetchall()
for i in filters:
f = ReportFilters.fd.get(i[0])
f.run()
cursor.close()
class Filter1(Filters):
def __init__(self):
self.f1 = None
''' here is where i tried super() and Filters.__init__.() etc.... but couldn't make it work'''
def run(self):
'''Here is where i want to run the filters but as of now i am trying to print out the
location and the report to see if it gets the variables.'''
print(Filters.get_location())
class ReportFilters(Filters):
fd = {
'filter_1': Filter1(),
'filter_2': Filter2(),
'filter_3': Filter3()
}
My errors come from the dictionary call, as when i tried to call it as it is asking for the report and location variables.
Hope this is clear enough for you to help out with, as always it is duly appreciated.
DamnGroundHog
The call to its parent class should be defined inside the init function and you should pass the arguments 'self', 'report' and 'location' into init() and Filters.init() call to parent class so that it can find those variables.
If the error is in the Filters1 class object, when you try to use run method and you do not see a location or a report variable passed in from parent class, that is because you haven't defined them when you instantiated those object in ReportFilters.fd
It should be:
class ReportFilters(Filters):
fd = {
'filter_1': Filter1(report1, location1),
'filter_2': Filter2(report2, location2),
'filter_3': Filter3(report3, location3)
}
class Filter1(Filters):
def __init__(self, report, location):
Filters.__init__(self, report, location)
self.f1 = None
def run(self):
print(self.get_location())
I'm wondering if I have:
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.attribute = 1
self._member = 2
def _get_member(self):
return self._member
def _set_member(self, member):
self._member = member
member = property(_get_member, _set_member)
class B(object):
def __init__(self):
self._member = A()
def _get_a_member(self):
return self._member.member
def _set_a_member(self, member):
self._member.member = member
member = property(_get_a_member, _set_a_member)
Can I somehow avoid to write get/setters for A.member, and simply refer to the attribute or property of the A object?
Where the get/setters do logic, its of course needed, but if I simply wan't to expose the member/attributes of a member attribute, then writing get/setters seems like overhead.
I think even if I could write the get/setters inline that would help?
I find the question a bit unclear, however I try to explain some context.
Where the get/setters do logic, its of course needed, but if I simply wan't to expose the member/attributes of a member attribute
If there is no logic in getter/setters, then there is no need to define the attribute as a property, but the attribute can be used directly (in any context).
So
class A(object):
def __init__(self):
self.attribute = 1
self.member = 2
class B(object):
def __init__(self):
self.member = A()
B().member.member # returns 2
B().member.member = 10
In some languages, it's considered good practice to abstract instance properties with getter/setter methods, That's not necessarily the case in Python.
Python properties are useful when you'd need more control over the attribute, for example:
when there is logic (validation, etc.)
to define a readonly attribute (so only providing a getter without a setter)
Update (after the comment)
properties are not necessarily a tool to "hide" some internal implementation. Hiding in Python is a bit different than say in Java, due to very dynamic nature of Python language. It's always possible to introspect and even change objects on the fly, you can add new attributes (even methods) to objects on runtime:
b = B()
b.foo = 4 # define a new attribute on runtime
b.foo # returns 4
So Python developers rely more on conventions to hint their intentions of abstractions.
About the polymorphic members, I think it's most natural for Python classes to just share an interface, that's what's meant by Duck typing. So as long as your next implementation of A supports the same interface (provides the same methods for callers), it should not be any issue to change its implementation.
So this is what I came up with - use a method to generate the properties, with the assumption that the obj has an attribute of _member:
def generate_cls_a_property(name):
"""Small helper method for generating a 'dumb' property for the A object"""
def getter(obj):
return getattr(obj._member, name)
def setter(obj, new_value):
setattr(obj._member, name, new_value)
return property(getter, setter)
This allows me to add properties like so:
class B(object):
def __init__(self):
self._member = A()
member = generate_cls_a_property('member') # generates a dumb/pass-through property
I'll accept my own, unless someone tops it within a week.. :)
I am working with pymongo and am wanting to ensure that data saved can be loaded even if additional data elements have been added to the schema.
I have used this for classes that don't need to have the information processed before assigning it to class attributes:
class MyClass(object):
def __init__(self, instance_id):
#set default values
self.database_id = instance_id
self.myvar = 0
#load values from database
self.__load()
def __load(self):
data_dict = Collection.find_one({"_id":self.database_id})
for key, attribute in data_dict.items():
self.__setattr__(key,attribute)
However, in classes that I have to process the data from the database this doesn't work:
class Example(object):
def __init__(self, name):
self.name = name
self.database_id = None
self.member_dict = {}
self.load()
def load(self):
data_dict = Collection.find_one({"name":self.name})
self.database_id = data_dict["_id"]
for element in data_dict["element_list"]:
self.process_element(element)
for member_name, member_info in data_dict["member_class_dict"].items():
self.member_dict[member_name] = MemberClass(member_info)
def process_element(self, element):
print("Do Stuff")
Two example use cases I have are:
1) List of strings the are used to set flags, this is done by calling a function with the string as the argument. (def process_element above)
2) A dictionary of dictionaries which are used to create a list of instances of a class. (MemberClass(member_info) above)
I tried creating properties to handle this but found that __setattr__ doesn't look for properties.
I know I could redefine __setattr__ to look for specific names but it is my understanding that this would slow down all set interactions with the class and I would prefer to avoid that.
I also know I could use a bunch of try/excepts to catch the errors but this would end up making the code very bulky.
I don't mind the load function being slowed down a bit for this but very much want to avoid anything that will slow down the class outside of loading.
So the solution that I came up with is to use the idea of changing the __setattr__ method but instead to handle the exceptions in the load function instead of the __setattr__.
def load(self):
data_dict = Collection.find_one({"name":self.name})
for key, attribute in world_data.items():
if key == "_id":
self.database_id = attribute
elif key == "element_list":
for element in attribute:
self.process_element(element)
elif key == "member_class_dict":
for member_name, member_info in attribute.items():
self.member_dict[member_name] = MemberClass(member_info)
else:
self.__setattr__(key,attribute)
This provides all of the functionality of overriding the __setattr__ method without slowing down any future calls to __setattr__ outside of loading the class.
Sorry if the title is confusing. I'm writing a minimalist game engine, and trying to define a class called "Area" where if the player enters the area, a function defined by the user happens. For example, one could create an instance
Area(location,function) that would fire function on the player when the player enters location (for the sake of simplicity, let it be a point or something).
Note: in pseudo-python
# in init.py
...
def function(player):
kill player
deathZone = Area(location,function)
--------------------------------------
# in player.update()
...
for area on screen:
if player in area:
Area.function(player)
The point of this is that the developer (aka me) can use any function they choose for the area. Is there anyway to do this, or should I try a better approach?
Sure, this kind of thing is certainly possible. In python, everything is an object, even a function. So you can pass around a function reference as a variable. For example try the following code:
import math
def rectangle(a, b):
return a*b
def circle(radius):
return math.pi * radius**2
class FunctionRunner(object):
def __init__(self):
self.userFunction = None
self.userParams = None
def setUserFunction(self, func, *params):
self.userFunction = func
self.userParams = params
def runFunction(self):
return self.userFunction(*self.userParams)
if __name__ == '__main__':
functionRunner = FunctionRunner()
functionRunner.setUserFunction(rectangle, 6, 7)
print(functionRunner.runFunction())
functionRunner.setUserFunction(circle, 42)
print(functionRunner.runFunction())
Here you have two functions that are defined for an area, and a class called FunctionRunner which can run any function with any number of input arguments. In the main program, notice that you need only pass the reference to the function name, and any input arguments needed to the setUserFunction method. This kind of thing will allow you to execute arbitrary code on the fly.
Alternatively, you could also replace a method on your class with a reference to another function (which is what you are asking), though this seems less safe to me. But it is certainly possible. For example you could have a class like this:
class FunctionRunner2(object):
def __init__(self):
pass
def setUserFunction(self, func):
self.theFunction = func
def theFunction(self, *params):
pass
And then do this:
if __name__ == '__main__':
functionRunner2 = FunctionRunner2()
functionRunner2.setUserFunction(rectangle)
print(functionRunner2.theFunction(6,7))
functionRunner2.setUserFunction(circle)
print(functionRunner2.theFunction(42))