Search Results

Search found 23 results on 1 pages for 'staticmethod'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • @staticmethod vs module-level function

    - by darkfeline
    This is not about @staticmethod and @classmethod! I know how staticmethod works. What I want to know is the proper use cases for @staticmethod vs. a module-level function. I've googled this question, and it seems there's some general agreement that module-level functions are preferred over static methods because it's more pythonic. Static methods have the advantage of being bound to its class, which may make sense if only that class uses it. However, in Python functionality is usually organized by module not class, so usually making it a module function makes sense too. Static methods can also be overridden by subclasses, which is an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you look at it. Although, static methods are usually "functionally pure" so overriding it may not be smart, but it may be convenient sometimes (though this may be one of those "convenient, but NEVER DO IT" kind of things only experience can teach you). Are there any general rule-of-thumbs for using either staticmethod or module-level functions? What concrete advantages or disadvantages do they have (e.g. future extension, external extension, readability)? If possible, also provide a case example.

    Read the article

  • Why does decorating a class break the descriptor protocol, thus preventing staticmethod objects from behaving as expected?

    - by Robru
    I need a little bit of help understanding the subtleties of the descriptor protocol in Python, as it relates specifically to the behavior of staticmethod objects. I'll start with a trivial example, and then iteratively expand it, examining it's behavior at each step: class Stub: @staticmethod def do_things(): """Call this like Stub.do_things(), with no arguments or instance.""" print "Doing things!" At this point, this behaves as expected, but what's going on here is a bit subtle: When you call Stub.do_things(), you are not invoking do_things directly. Instead, Stub.do_things refers to a staticmethod instance, which has wrapped the function we want up inside it's own descriptor protocol such that you are actually invoking staticmethod.__get__, which first returns the function that we want, and then gets called afterwards. >>> Stub <class __main__.Stub at 0x...> >>> Stub.do_things <function do_things at 0x...> >>> Stub.__dict__['do_things'] <staticmethod object at 0x...> >>> Stub.do_things() Doing things! So far so good. Next, I need to wrap the class in a decorator that will be used to customize class instantiation -- the decorator will determine whether to allow new instantiations or provide cached instances: def deco(cls): def factory(*args, **kwargs): # pretend there is some logic here determining # whether to make a new instance or not return cls(*args, **kwargs) return factory @deco class Stub: @staticmethod def do_things(): """Call this like Stub.do_things(), with no arguments or instance.""" print "Doing things!" Now, naturally this part as-is would be expected to break staticmethods, because the class is now hidden behind it's decorator, ie, Stub not a class at all, but an instance of factory that is able to produce instances of Stub when you call it. Indeed: >>> Stub <function factory at 0x...> >>> Stub.do_things Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'do_things' >>> Stub() <__main__.Stub instance at 0x...> >>> Stub().do_things <function do_things at 0x...> >>> Stub().do_things() Doing things! So far I understand what's happening here. My goal is to restore the ability for staticmethods to function as you would expect them to, even though the class is wrapped. As luck would have it, the Python stdlib includes something called functools, which provides some tools just for this purpose, ie, making functions behave more like other functions that they wrap. So I change my decorator to look like this: def deco(cls): @functools.wraps(cls) def factory(*args, **kwargs): # pretend there is some logic here determining # whether to make a new instance or not return cls(*args, **kwargs) return factory Now, things start to get interesting: >>> Stub <function Stub at 0x...> >>> Stub.do_things <staticmethod object at 0x...> >>> Stub.do_things() Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: 'staticmethod' object is not callable >>> Stub() <__main__.Stub instance at 0x...> >>> Stub().do_things <function do_things at 0x...> >>> Stub().do_things() Doing things! Wait.... what? functools copies the staticmethod over to the wrapping function, but it's not callable? Why not? What did I miss here? I was playing around with this for a bit and I actually came up with my own reimplementation of staticmethod that allows it to function in this situation, but I don't really understand why it was necessary or if this is even the best solution to this problem. Here's the complete example: class staticmethod(object): """Make @staticmethods play nice with decorated classes.""" def __init__(self, func): self.func = func def __call__(self, *args, **kwargs): """Provide the expected behavior inside decorated classes.""" return self.func(*args, **kwargs) def __get__(self, obj, objtype=None): """Re-implement the standard behavior for undecorated classes.""" return self.func def deco(cls): @functools.wraps(cls) def factory(*args, **kwargs): # pretend there is some logic here determining # whether to make a new instance or not return cls(*args, **kwargs) return factory @deco class Stub: @staticmethod def do_things(): """Call this like Stub.do_things(), with no arguments or instance.""" print "Doing things!" Indeed it works exactly as expected: >>> Stub <function Stub at 0x...> >>> Stub.do_things <__main__.staticmethod object at 0x...> >>> Stub.do_things() Doing things! >>> Stub() <__main__.Stub instance at 0x...> >>> Stub().do_things <function do_things at 0x...> >>> Stub().do_things() Doing things! What approach would you take to make a staticmethod behave as expected inside a decorated class? Is this the best way? Why doesn't the builtin staticmethod implement __call__ on it's own in order for this to just work without any fuss? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why is it preferable to call a static method statically from within an instance of the method's clas

    - by javanix
    If I create an instance of a class in Java, why is it preferable to call a static method of that same class statically, rather than using this.method()? I get a warning from Eclipse when I try to call static method staticMethod() from within the custom class's constructor via this.staticMethod(). public MyClass() { this.staticMethod(); } vs public MyClass() { MyClass.staticMethod(); } Can anyone explain why this is a bad thing to do? It seems to me like the compiler should already have allocated an instance of the object, so statically allocating memory would be unneeded overhead.

    Read the article

  • Only one user can connect to Ubuntu samba server

    - by StaticMethod
    I setup a samba server on 12.04 LTS, and it works great for one user but not the others. I am trying to map a network drive from a windows 7 laptop. I can successfully authenticate with one user, but the other two both get "Access is denied" errors. Here is my smb.conf file. [global] server string = %h server (Samba, Ubuntu) map to guest = Bad User obey pam restrictions = Yes pam password change = Yes passwd program = /usr/bin/passwd %u passwd chat = *Enter\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *Retype\snew\s*\spassword:* %n\n *password\supdated\ssuccessfully* . unix password sync = Yes syslog = 0 log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m max log size = 1000 dns proxy = No usershare allow guests = Yes panic action = /usr/share/samba/panic-action %d idmap config * : backend = tdb [printers] comment = All Printers path = /var/spool/samba create mask = 0700 printable = Yes print ok = Yes browseable = No [print$] comment = Printer Drivers path = /var/lib/samba/printers [share] comment = Ubuntu File Server Share path = /srv/share read only = No create mask = 0755 I know that the service is successfully reading from the /etc/passwd file because if I change the Linux password for the user that works, I have to use the new password when I connect. I changed all the users so they are all members of the same groups (all three users are admins anyway). I only ever have one user connected at a time. Here are the permissions on the shared folder /srv$ ls -l drwxrwxrwx 1 nobody nogroup 16 Feb 22 17:05 share Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • using Java enums or public static fields in MATLAB

    - by Jason S
    I'm wondering how in MATLAB you can get a reference to a Java enum or static public field. In MATLAB, if you are trying to use Java objects/methods, there are equivalents to Java object creation / method call / etc.: Java: new com.example.test.Foo(); MATLAB: javaObject('com.example.test.Foo'); Java: com.example.test.Foo.staticMethod(); MATLAB: javaMethod('staticMethod', 'com.example.test.Foo'); Java: SomeEnum e = com.example.test.SomeEnum.MY_FAVORITE_ENUM; MATLAB: ????? Java: int n = com.example.test.Foo.MAX_FOO; MATLAB: ?????

    Read the article

  • Python overriding class (not instance) special methods

    - by André
    How do I override a class special method? I want to be able to call the __str__() method of the class without creating an instance. Example: class Foo: def __str__(self): return 'Bar' class StaticFoo: @staticmethod def __str__(): return 'StaticBar' class ClassFoo: @classmethod def __str__(cls): return 'ClassBar' if __name__ == '__main__': print(Foo) print(Foo()) print(StaticFoo) print(StaticFoo()) print(ClassFoo) print(ClassFoo()) produces: <class '__main__.Foo'> Bar <class '__main__.StaticFoo'> StaticBar <class '__main__.ClassFoo'> ClassBar should be: Bar Bar StaticBar StaticBar ClassBar ClassBar Even if I use the @staticmethod or @classmethod the __str__ is still using the built in python definition for __str__. It's only working when it's Foo().__str__() instead of Foo.__str__().

    Read the article

  • Why does Zend discourage "floating functions"?

    - by kojiro
    Zend's Coding Standard Naming Convention says Functions in the global scope (a.k.a "floating functions") are permitted but discouraged in most cases. Consider wrapping these functions in a static class. The common wisdom in Python says practically the opposite: Finally, use staticmethod sparingly! There are very few situations where static-methods are necessary in Python, and I've seen them used many times where a separate "top-level" function would have been clearer. (Not only does the above StackOverflow answer warn against overuse of static methods, but more than one Python linter will warn the same.) Is this something that can be generalized across programming languages, and if so, why does Python differ so from PHP? If it's not something that can be generalized, what is the basis for one approach or the other, and is there a way to immediately recognize in a language whether you should prefer bare functions or static methods?

    Read the article

  • python factory function best practices

    - by Jason S
    Suppose I have a file foo.py containing a class Foo: class Foo(object): def __init__(self, data): ... Now I want to add a function that creates a Foo object in a certain way from raw source data. Should I put it as a static method in Foo or as another separate function? class Foo(object): def __init__(self, data): ... # option 1: @staticmethod def fromSourceData(sourceData): return Foo(processData(sourceData)) # option 2: def makeFoo(sourceData): return Foo(processData(sourceData)) I don't know whether it's more important to be convenient for users: foo1 = foo.makeFoo(sourceData) or whether it's more important to maintain clear coupling between the method and the class: foo1 = foo.Foo.fromSourceData(sourceData)

    Read the article

  • How to bind "OnDataBound" event of "DropDownList" in declarative syntax to a static method in some o

    - by Puneet Dudeja
    How to bind "OnDataBound" event of "DropDownList" in declarative syntax to a static method in some other class ? e.g <asp:DropDownList runat="server" id="d1" OnDataBound="SomeOtherClassThanThisPage.StaticMethod"></asp:DropDownList> This will give the error, "Page does not contain a definition for SomeOtherClassThanThisPage. Is this possible to do it like this or it be done in the Code Behind only ?

    Read the article

  • Javascript static method intheritance

    - by Matteo Pagliazzi
    I want to create a javascript class/object that allow me to have various method: Model class Model.all() » static method Model.find() » static method Model delete() » instance method Model save() » instance method Model.create() » static that returns a new Model instance For static method I can define them using: Model.staticMethod(){ method } while for instance method is better to use: function Model(){ this.instanceMethod = function(){} } and then create a new instance or using prototype? var m = function Model(){ } m.prototype.method() = function(){ } Now let's say that I want to create a new class based on Model, how to inherit not only its prototypes but also its static methods?

    Read the article

  • Static lock in Python?

    - by roddik
    Hello. I've got the following code: import time import threading class BaseWrapper: #static class lock = threading.Lock() @staticmethod def synchronized_def(): BaseWrapper.lock.acquire() time.sleep(5) BaseWrapper.lock.release() def test(): print time.ctime() if __name__ is '__main__': for i in xrange(10): threading.Thread(target = test).start() I want to have a method synchronized using static lock. However the above code prints the same time ten times, so it isn't really locking. How can I fix it? TIA

    Read the article

  • Mocking the Unmockable: Using Microsoft Moles with Gallio

    - by Thomas Weller
    Usual opensource mocking frameworks (like e.g. Moq or Rhino.Mocks) can mock only interfaces and virtual methods. In contrary to that, Microsoft’s Moles framework can ‘mock’ virtually anything, in that it uses runtime instrumentation to inject callbacks in the method MSIL bodies of the moled methods. Therefore, it is possible to detour any .NET method, including non-virtual/static methods in sealed types. This can be extremely helpful when dealing e.g. with code that calls into the .NET framework, some third-party or legacy stuff etc… Some useful collected resources (links to website, documentation material and some videos) can be found in my toolbox on Delicious under this link: http://delicious.com/thomasweller/toolbox+moles A Gallio extension for Moles Originally, Moles is a part of Microsoft’s Pex framework and thus integrates best with Visual Studio Unit Tests (MSTest). However, the Moles sample download contains some additional assemblies to also support other unit test frameworks. They provide a Moled attribute to ease the usage of mole types with the respective framework (there are extensions for NUnit, xUnit.net and MbUnit v2 included with the samples). As there is no such extension for the Gallio platform, I did the few required lines myself – the resulting Gallio.Moles.dll is included with the sample download. With this little assembly in place, it is possible to use Moles with Gallio like that: [Test, Moled] public void SomeTest() {     ... What you can do with it Moles can be very helpful, if you need to ‘mock’ something other than a virtual or interface-implementing method. This might be the case when dealing with some third-party component, legacy code, or if you want to ‘mock’ the .NET framework itself. Generally, you need to announce each moled type that you want to use in a test with the MoledType attribute on assembly level. For example: [assembly: MoledType(typeof(System.IO.File))] Below are some typical use cases for Moles. For a more detailed overview (incl. naming conventions and an instruction on how to create the required moles assemblies), please refer to the reference material above.  Detouring the .NET framework Imagine that you want to test a method similar to the one below, which internally calls some framework method:   public void ReadFileContent(string fileName) {     this.FileContent = System.IO.File.ReadAllText(fileName); } Using a mole, you would replace the call to the File.ReadAllText(string) method with a runtime delegate like so: [Test, Moled] [Description("This 'mocks' the System.IO.File class with a custom delegate.")] public void ReadFileContentWithMoles() {     // arrange ('mock' the FileSystem with a delegate)     System.IO.Moles.MFile.ReadAllTextString = (fname => fname == FileName ? FileContent : "WrongFileName");       // act     var testTarget = new TestTarget.TestTarget();     testTarget.ReadFileContent(FileName);       // assert     Assert.AreEqual(FileContent, testTarget.FileContent); } Detouring static methods and/or classes A static method like the below… public static string StaticMethod(int x, int y) {     return string.Format("{0}{1}", x, y); } … can be ‘mocked’ with the following: [Test, Moled] public void StaticMethodWithMoles() {     MStaticClass.StaticMethodInt32Int32 = ((x, y) => "uups");       var result = StaticClass.StaticMethod(1, 2);       Assert.AreEqual("uups", result); } Detouring constructors You can do this delegate thing even with a class’ constructor. The syntax for this is not all  too intuitive, because you have to setup the internal state of the mole, but generally it works like a charm. For example, to replace this c’tor… public class ClassWithCtor {     public int Value { get; private set; }       public ClassWithCtor(int someValue)     {         this.Value = someValue;     } } … you would do the following: [Test, Moled] public void ConstructorTestWithMoles() {     MClassWithCtor.ConstructorInt32 =            ((@class, @value) => new MClassWithCtor(@class) {ValueGet = () => 99});       var classWithCtor = new ClassWithCtor(3);       Assert.AreEqual(99, classWithCtor.Value); } Detouring abstract base classes You can also use this approach to ‘mock’ abstract base classes of a class that you call in your test. Assumed that you have something like that: public abstract class AbstractBaseClass {     public virtual string SaySomething()     {         return "Hello from base.";     } }      public class ChildClass : AbstractBaseClass {     public override string SaySomething()     {         return string.Format(             "Hello from child. Base says: '{0}'",             base.SaySomething());     } } Then you would set up the child’s underlying base class like this: [Test, Moled] public void AbstractBaseClassTestWithMoles() {     ChildClass child = new ChildClass();     new MAbstractBaseClass(child)         {                 SaySomething = () => "Leave me alone!"         }         .InstanceBehavior = MoleBehaviors.Fallthrough;       var hello = child.SaySomething();       Assert.AreEqual("Hello from child. Base says: 'Leave me alone!'", hello); } Setting the moles behavior to a value of  MoleBehaviors.Fallthrough causes the ‘original’ method to be called if a respective delegate is not provided explicitly – here it causes the ChildClass’ override of the SaySomething() method to be called. There are some more possible scenarios, where the Moles framework could be of much help (e.g. it’s also possible to detour interface implementations like IEnumerable<T> and such…). One other possibility that comes to my mind (because I’m currently dealing with that), is to replace calls from repository classes to the ADO.NET Entity Framework O/R mapper with delegates to isolate the repository classes from the underlying database, which otherwise would not be possible… Usage Since Moles relies on runtime instrumentation, mole types must be run under the Pex profiler. This only works from inside Visual Studio if you write your tests with MSTest (Visual Studio Unit Test). While other unit test frameworks generally can be used with Moles, they require the respective tests to be run via command line, executed through the moles.runner.exe tool. A typical test execution would be similar to this: moles.runner.exe <mytests.dll> /runner:<myframework.console.exe> /args:/<myargs> So, the moled test can be run through tools like NCover or a scripting tool like MSBuild (which makes them easy to run in a Continuous Integration environment), but they are somewhat unhandy to run in the usual TDD workflow (which I described in some detail here). To make this a bit more fluent, I wrote a ReSharper live template to generate the respective command line for the test (it is also included in the sample download – moled_cmd.xml). - This is just a quick-and-dirty ‘solution’. Maybe it makes sense to write an extra Gallio adapter plugin (similar to the many others that are already provided) and include it with the Gallio download package, if  there’s sufficient demand for it. As of now, the only way to run tests with the Moles framework from within Visual Studio is by using them with MSTest. From the command line, anything with a managed console runner can be used (provided that the appropriate extension is in place)… A typical Gallio/Moles command line (as generated by the mentioned R#-template) looks like that: "%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Moles\bin\moles.runner.exe" /runner:"%ProgramFiles%\Gallio\bin\Gallio.Echo.exe" "Gallio.Moles.Demo.dll" /args:/r:IsolatedAppDomain /args:/filter:"ExactType:TestFixture and Member:ReadFileContentWithMoles" -- Note: When using the command line with Echo (Gallio’s console runner), be sure to always include the IsolatedAppDomain option, otherwise the tests won’t use the instrumentation callbacks! -- License issues As I already said, the free mocking frameworks can mock only interfaces and virtual methods. if you want to mock other things, you need the Typemock Isolator tool for that, which comes with license costs (Although these ‘costs’ are ridiculously low compared to the value that such a tool can bring to a software project, spending money often is a considerable gateway hurdle in real life...).  The Moles framework also is not totally free, but comes with the same license conditions as the (closely related) Pex framework: It is free for academic/non-commercial use only, to use it in a ‘real’ software project requires an MSDN Subscription (from VS2010pro on). The demo solution The sample solution (VS 2008) can be downloaded from here. It contains the Gallio.Moles.dll which provides the here described Moled attribute, the above mentioned R#-template (moled_cmd.xml) and a test fixture containing the above described use case scenarios. To run it, you need the Gallio framework (download) and Microsoft Moles (download) being installed in the default locations. Happy testing…

    Read the article

  • create cookie in web method

    - by quantum62
    i have a web method that check user in data base via a jquery-ajax method i wanna if client exists in db i create a cookie in client side with user name but i know that response is not available in staticmethod .how can i create a cookie in a method that call with jquery ajax and must be static. its my code that does not work cuz response is not accesible if (olduser.Trim() == username.Trim() && password.Trim()==oldpass.Trim()) { retval =olduser; HttpContext context = HttpContext.Current; context.Session[retval.ToString()] = retval.ToString(); HttpCookie cook = new HttpCookie("userath"); cook["submituser"] = "undifiend"; Response.Cookies.Add(cook); }

    Read the article

  • What is the advantage of using static methods in Python?

    - by Curious2learn
    I ran into unbound method error in python with the code class Sample(object): '''This class defines various methods related to the sample''' def drawSample(samplesize,List): sample=random.sample(List,samplesize) return sample Choices=range(100) print Sample.drawSample(5,Choices) After reading many helpful posts here, I figured how I could add @staticmethod above to get the code working. I am python newbie. Can someone please explain why one would want to define static methods? Or, why are not all methods defined as static methods. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Multi-argument decorators in 2.6

    - by wheaties
    Generally don't do OO-programming in Python. This project requires it and am running into a bit of trouble. Here's my scratch code for attempting to figure out where it went wrong: class trial(object): def output( func, x ): def ya( self, y ): return func( self, x ) + y return ya def f1( func ): return output( func, 1 ) @f1 def sum1( self, x ): return x which doesn't compile. I've attempted to add the @staticmethod tag to the "output" and "f1" functions but to no avail. Normally I'd do this def output( func, x ): def ya( y ): return func( x ) + y return ya def f1( func ): return output( func, 1 ) @f1 def sum1( x ): return x which does work. So how do I get this going in a class?

    Read the article

  • default model field attribute in Django

    - by Rosarch
    I have a Django model: @staticmethod def getdefault(): print "getdefault called" return cPickle.dumps(set()) _applies_to = models.TextField(db_index=True, default=getdefault) For some reason, getdefault() is never called, even as I construct instances of this model and save them to the database. This seems to contradict the Django documentation: Field.default The default value for the field. This can be a value or a callable object. If callable it will be called every time a new object is created. Am I doing something wrong? Update: Originally, I had this, but then I switched to the above version to debug: _applies_to = models.TextField(db_index=True, default=cPickle.dumps(set())) I'm not sure why that wouldn't work.

    Read the article

  • Spaceship objects

    - by Jam
    I'm trying to make a program which creates a spaceship and I'm using the status() method to display the ship's name and fuel values. However, it doesn't seem to be working. I think I may have messed something up with the status() method. I'm also trying to make it so that I can change the fuel values, but I don't want to create a new method to do so. I think I've taken a horrible wrong turn somewhere in there. Help please! class Ship(object): def __init__(self, name="Enterprise", fuel=0): self.name=name self.fuel=fuel print "The spaceship", name, "has arrived!" def status(): print "Name: ", self.name print "Fuel level: ", self.fuel status=staticmethod(status) def main(): ship1=Ship(raw_input("What would you like to name this ship?")) fuel_level=raw_input("How much fuel does this ship have?") if fuel_level<0: self.fuel=0 else: self.fuel(fuel_level) ship2=Ship(raw_input("What would you like to name this ship?")) fuel_level2=raw_input("How much fuel does this ship have?") if fuel_level2<0: self.fuel=0 else: self.fuel(fuel_level2) ship3=Ship(raw_input("What would you like to name this ship?")) fuel_level3=raw_input("How much fuel does this ship have?") if fuel_level3<0: self.fuel=0 else: self.fuel(fuel_level3) Ship.status() main() raw_input("Press enter to exit.")

    Read the article

  • Building a formset dynamically

    - by vorpyg
    I initially wrote code to build a form dynamically, based on data from the DB, similar to what I described in my previous SO post. As SO user Daniel Roseman points out, he would use a formset for this, and now I've come to the realization that he must be completely right. :) My approach works, basically, but I can't seem to get validation across the entire form to be working properly (I believe it's possible, but it's getting quite complex, and there has to be a smarter way of doing it = Formsets!). So now my question is: How can I build a formset dynamically? Not in an AJAX way, I want each form's label to be populated with an FK value (team) from the DB. As I have a need for passing parameters to the form, I've used this technique from a previous SO post. With the former approach, my view code is (form code in previous link): def render_form(request): teams = Team.objects.filter(game=game) form_collection = [] for team in teams: f = SuggestionForm(request.POST or None, team=team, user=request.user) form_collection.append(f) Now I want to do something like: def render_form(request): teams = Team.objects.filter(game=game) from django.utils.functional import curry from django.forms.formsets import formset_factory formset = formset_factory(SuggestionForm) for team in teams: formset.form.append(staticmethod(curry(SuggestionForm, request.POST or None, team=team, user=request.user))) But the append bit doesn't work. What's the proper way of doing this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • getting Cannot identify image file when trying to create thumbnail in django

    - by Mo J. Mughrabi
    Am trying to create a thumbnail in django, am trying to build a custom class specifically to be used for generating thumbnails. As following from StringIO import StringIO from PIL import Image class Thumbnail(object): source = '' size = (50, 50) output = '' def __init__(self): pass @staticmethod def load(src): self = Thumbnail() self.source = src return self def generate(self, size=(50, 50)): if not isinstance(size, tuple): raise Exception('Thumbnail class: The size parameter must be an instance of a tuple.') self.size = size # resize properties box = self.size factor = 1 fit = True image = Image.open(self.source) # Convert to RGB if necessary if image.mode not in ('L', 'RGB'): image = image.convert('RGB') while image.size[0]/factor > 2*box[0] and image.size[1]*2/factor > 2*box[1]: factor *=2 if factor > 1: image.thumbnail((image.size[0]/factor, image.size[1]/factor), Image.NEAREST) #calculate the cropping box and get the cropped part if fit: x1 = y1 = 0 x2, y2 = image.size wRatio = 1.0 * x2/box[0] hRatio = 1.0 * y2/box[1] if hRatio > wRatio: y1 = int(y2/2-box[1]*wRatio/2) y2 = int(y2/2+box[1]*wRatio/2) else: x1 = int(x2/2-box[0]*hRatio/2) x2 = int(x2/2+box[0]*hRatio/2) image = image.crop((x1,y1,x2,y2)) #Resize the image with best quality algorithm ANTI-ALIAS image.thumbnail(box, Image.ANTIALIAS) # save image to memory temp_handle = StringIO() image.save(temp_handle, 'png') temp_handle.seek(0) self.output = temp_handle return self def get_output(self): return self.output.read() the purpose of the class is so i can use it inside different locations to generate thumbnails on the fly. The class works perfectly, I've tested it directly under a view.. I've implemented the thumbnail class inside the save method of the forms to resize the original images on saving. in my design, I have two fields for thumbnails. I was able to generate one thumbnail, if I try to generate two it crashes and I've been stuck for hours not sure whats the problem. Here is my model class Image(models.Model): article = models.ForeignKey(Article) title = models.CharField(max_length=100, null=True, blank=True) src = models.ImageField(upload_to='publication/image/') r128 = models.ImageField(upload_to='publication/image/128/', blank=True, null=True) r200 = models.ImageField(upload_to='publication/image/200/', blank=True, null=True) uploaded_at = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) Here is my forms class ImageForm(models.ModelForm): """ """ class Meta: model = Image fields = ('src',) def save(self, commit=True): instance = super(ImageForm, self).save(commit=True) file = Thumbnail.load(instance.src) instance.r128 = SimpleUploadedFile( instance.src.name, file.generate((128, 128)).get_output(), content_type='image/png' ) instance.r200 = SimpleUploadedFile( instance.src.name, file.generate((200, 200)).get_output(), content_type='image/png' ) if commit: instance.save() return instance the strange part is, when i remove the line which contains instance.r200 in the form save. It works fine, and it does the thumbnail and stores it successfully. Once I add the second thumbnail it fails.. Any ideas what am doing wrong here? Thanks Update: I tried earlier doing the following but I still got the same error class ImageForm(models.ModelForm): """ """ class Meta: model = Image fields = ('src',) def save(self, commit=True): instance = super(ImageForm, self).save(commit=True) instance.r128 = SimpleUploadedFile( instance.src.name, Thumbnail.load(instance.src).generate((128, 128)).get_output(), content_type='image/png' ) instance.r200 = SimpleUploadedFile( instance.src.name, Thumbnail.load(instance.src).generate((200, 200)).get_output(), content_type='image/png' ) if commit: instance.save() return instance

    Read the article

  • Code excavations, wishful invocations, perimeters and domain specific unit test frameworks

    - by RoyOsherove
    One of the talks I did at QCON London was about a subject that I’ve come across fairly recently , when I was building SilverUnit – a “pure” unit test framework for silverlight objects that depend on the silverlight runtime to run. It is the concept of “cogs in the machine” – when your piece of code needs to run inside a host framework or runtime that you have little or no control over for testability related matters. Examples of such cogs and machines can be: your custom control running inside silverlight runtime in the browser your plug-in running inside an IDE your activity running inside a windows workflow your code running inside a java EE bean your code inheriting from a COM+ (enterprise services) component etc.. Not all of these are necessarily testability problems. The main testability problem usually comes when your code actually inherits form something inside the system. For example. one of the biggest problems with testing objects like silverlight controls is the way they depend on the silverlight runtime – they don’t implement some silverlight interface, they don’t just call external static methods against the framework runtime that surrounds them – they actually inherit parts of the framework: they all inherit (in this case) from the silverlight DependencyObject Wrapping it up? An inheritance dependency is uniquely challenging to bring under test, because “classic” methods such as wrapping the object under test with a framework wrapper will not work, and the only way to do manually is to create parallel testable objects that get delegated with all the possible actions from the dependencies.    In silverlight’s case, that would mean creating your own custom logic class that would be called directly from controls that inherit from silverlight, and would be tested independently of these controls. The pro side is that you get the benefit of understanding the “contract” and the “roles” your system plays against your logic, but unfortunately, more often than not, it can be very tedious to create, and may sometimes feel unnecessary or like code duplication. About perimeters A perimeter is that invisible line that your draw around your pieces of logic during a test, that separate the code under test from any dependencies that it uses. Most of the time, a test perimeter around an object will be the list of seams (dependencies that can be replaced such as interfaces, virtual methods etc.) that are actually replaced for that test or for all the tests. Role based perimeters In the case of creating a wrapper around an object – one really creates a “role based” perimeter around the logic that is being tested – that wrapper takes on roles that are required by the code under test, and also communicates with the host system to implement those roles and provide any inputs to the logic under test. in the image below – we have the code we want to test represented as a star. No perimeter is drawn yet (we haven’t wrapped it up in anything yet). in the image below is what happens when you wrap your logic with a role based wrapper – you get a role based perimeter anywhere your code interacts with the system: There’s another way to bring that code under test – using isolation frameworks like typemock, rhino mocks and MOQ (but if your code inherits from the system, Typemock might be the only way to isolate the code from the system interaction.   Ad-Hoc Isolation perimeters the image below shows what I call ad-hoc perimeter that might be vastly different between different tests: This perimeter’s surface is much smaller, because for that specific test, that is all the “change” that is required to the host system behavior.   The third way of isolating the code from the host system is the main “meat” of this post: Subterranean perimeters Subterranean perimeters are Deep rooted perimeters  - “always on” seams that that can lie very deep in the heart of the host system where they are fully invisible even to the test itself, not just to the code under test. Because they lie deep inside a system you can’t control, the only way I’ve found to control them is with runtime (not compile time) interception of method calls on the system. One way to get such abilities is by using Aspect oriented frameworks – for example, in SilverUnit, I’ve used the CThru AOP framework based on Typemock hooks and CLR profilers to intercept such system level method calls and effectively turn them into seams that lie deep down at the heart of the silverlight runtime. the image below depicts an example of what such a perimeter could look like: As you can see, the actual seams can be very far away form the actual code under test, and as you’ll discover, that’s actually a very good thing. Here is only a partial list of examples of such deep rooted seams : disabling the constructor of a base class five levels below the code under test (this.base.base.base.base) faking static methods of a type that’s being called several levels down the stack: method x() calls y() calls z() calls SomeType.StaticMethod()  Replacing an async mechanism with a synchronous one (replacing all timers with your own timer behavior that always Ticks immediately upon calls to “start()” on the same caller thread for example) Replacing event mechanisms with your own event mechanism (to allow “firing” system events) Changing the way the system saves information with your own saving behavior (in silverunit, I replaced all Dependency Property set and get with calls to an in memory value store instead of using the one built into silverlight which threw exceptions without a browser) several questions could jump in: How do you know what to fake? (how do you discover the perimeter?) How do you fake it? Wouldn’t this be problematic  - to fake something you don’t own? it might change in the future How do you discover the perimeter to fake? To discover a perimeter all you have to do is start with a wishful invocation. a wishful invocation is the act of trying to invoke a method (or even just create an instance ) of an object using “regular” test code. You invoke the thing that you’d like to do in a real unit test, to see what happens: Can I even create an instance of this object without getting an exception? Can I invoke this method on that instance without getting an exception? Can I verify that some call into the system happened? You make the invocation, get an exception (because there is a dependency) and look at the stack trace. choose a location in the stack trace and disable it. Then try the invocation again. if you don’t get an exception the perimeter is good for that invocation, so you can move to trying out other methods on that object. in a future post I will show the process using CThru, and how you end up with something close to a domain specific test framework after you’re done creating the perimeter you need.

    Read the article

1