Class[_] equivalent in python - python-3.x

Question

I want to perform the following scala code into python3 language
class xyz{
def abc():Unit={
val clazz:Class[_] = this.getClass()
var fields: List[String] = getFields(clazz);
val method = clazz.getDeclaredMethods()
val methodname=method.getName()
val supper= clazz.getSuperclass()
println(clazz)
println(fields)
println(method)
}}

Answer 1

Class[_] equivalent in python
Class[_] is a static type. Python doesn't have static types, so there is no equivalent to the static type Class[_] in Python.
I want to perform the following scala code into python3 language
class xyz{
def abc():Unit={
val clazz:Class[_] = this.getClass()
var fields: List[String] = getFields(clazz);
val method = clazz.getDeclaredMethods()
val methodname=method.getName()
val supper= clazz.getSuperclass();}
def mno():Unit={
println("hello")}}
abc is simply a NO-OP(*). mno just prints to stdout. So, the equivalent in Python is
class xyz:
def abc(self):
pass
def mno(self):
print("hello")
Note that I made abc and mno instance methods, even though it makes no sense. (But that's the same for the Scala version.)
(*) Some who knows more about corner cases and side-effects of Java Reflection can correct me here. Maybe, this triggers some kind of Classloader refresh or something like that?

Answer 2

You can't get one-to-one correspondence simply because Python classes are organized very differently from JVM classes.
The equivalent of getClass() is type;
there is no equivalent to Class#getFields because fields aren't necessarily defined on a class in Python, but see How to list all fields of a class (and no methods)?.
Similarly getSuperclass(); Python classes can have more than one superclass, so __bases__ returns a tuple of base classes instead of just one.