[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Dispatch table of methods with various return value types

dn <PythonList at> writes:

Firsty, thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply.

> On 17/11/2020 23:35, Loris Bennett wrote:
>> dn <PythonList at> writes:
>>> On 17/11/2020 22:01, Loris Bennett wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I have a method for manipulating the membership of groups such as:
>>>>       def execute(self, operation, users, group):
>>>>           """
>>>>           Perform the given operation on the users with respect to the
>>>>           group
>>>>           """
>>>>           action = {
>>>>               'get': self.get,
>>>>               'add': self.add,
>>>>               'delete': self.delete,
>>>>           }
>>>>           return action.get(operation)(users, group)
>>>> The 'get' action would return, say, a dict of users attribute, whereas
>>>> the 'add/delete' actions would return, say, nothing, and all actions
>>>> could raise an exception if something goes wrong.
>>>> The method which calls 'execute' has to print something to the terminal,
>>>> such as the attributes in the case of 'get' and 'OK' in the cases of
>>>> 'add/delete' (assuming no exception occurred).
>>>> Is there a canonical way of dealing with a method which returns different
>>>> types of data, or should I just make all actions return the same data
>>>> structure so that I can generate a generic response?
>>> Is the problem caused by coding the first step before thinking of the overall
>>> task? Try diagramming or pseudo-coding the complete solution (with multiple
>>> approaches), ie the operations AND the printing and exception-handling.
>> You could have a point, although I do have a reasonable idea of what the
>> task is and coming from a Perl background, Python always feels a bit
>> like pseudocode anyway (which is one of the things I like about Python).
> +1 the ease of Python, but can this be seductive?
> Per the comment about Perl/Python experience, the operative part is the
> "thinking", not the tool - as revealed in responses below...
> Sometimes we design one 'solution' to a problem, and forget (or 'brainwash'
> ourselves into thinking) that there might be 'another way'.
> It may/not apply in this case, but adjusting from a diagram-first methodology,
> to the habit of 'jumping straight into code' exhibited by many colleagues,
> before readjusting back to (hopefully) a better balance; I felt that
> coding-first often caused me to 'paint myself into a corner' with some
> 'solutions, by being too-close to the code and not 'stepping back' to take a
> wider view of the design - but enough about me...
>>> Might it be more appropriate to complete not only the get but also its
>>> reporting, as a unit. Similarly the add and whatever happens after that; and the
>>> delete, likewise.
>> Currently I am already obtaining the result and doing the reporting in
>> one method, but that makes it difficult to write tests, since it
>> violates the idea that one method should, in general, just do one thing.
>> That separation would seem appropriate here, since testing whether a
>> data set is correctly retrieved from a database seems to be
>> significantly different to  testing whether the
>> reporting of an action is correctly laid out and free of typos.
> SRP = design thinking! +1

I knew the idea, but I didn't now the TLA for it ;-)

> TDD = early testing! +1
> Agreed: The tasks are definitely separate. The first is data-related. The second
> is about presentation.
> In keeping with the SRP philosophy, keep the split of execution-flow into the
> three (or more) functional-tasks by data-process, but turn each of those tasks
> into two steps/routines. (once the reporting routine following "add" has been
> coded, and it comes time to implement "delete", it may become possible to repeat
> the pattern, and thus 're-use' the second-half...)
> Putting it more formally: as the second-half is effectively 'chosen' at the same
> time as the first, is the reporting-routine "dependent" upon the data-processor?
> 	function get( self, ... )
> 		self.get_data()
> 		self.present_data()
> 	function add( self, ... )
> 		self.add_data()
> 		self.report_success_fail()
> 	...
> Thus, the functional task can be tested independently of any reporting follow-up
> (for example in "get"); whilst maintaining/multiplying SRP...

The above approach appeals to me a lot.  Slight downsides are that
such 'metafunctions' by necessity non-SRP functions and that, as there
would be no point writing tests for such functions, some tools which try
to determine test coverage might moan.

>>> Otherwise the code must first decide which action-handler, and later,
>>> which result-handler - but aren't they effectively the same decision?
>>> Thus, is the reporting integral to the get (even if they are in
>>> separate routines)?
>> I think you are right here.  Perhaps I should just ditch the dispatch
>> table.  Maybe that only really makes sense if the methods being
>> dispatched are indeed more similar.  Since I don't anticipate having
>> more than half a dozen actions, if that, so an if-elif-else chain
>> wouldn't be too clunky.
> An if...elif...else 'ladder' is logically-easy to read, but with many choices it
> may become logistically-complicated - even too long to display at-once on a
> single screen.
> Whereas, the table is a more complex solution (see 'Zen of Python') that only
> becomes 'simple' with practice.
> So, now we must balance the 'level(s)' of the team likely to maintain the
> program(me) against the evaluation of simple~complex. Someone with a ComSc
> background will have no trouble coping with the table - and once Python's
> concepts of dictionaries and functions as 'first-class objects' are understood,
> will take to it like the proverbial "duck to water". Whereas, someone else may
> end-up scratching his/her head trying to cope with 'all the above'.

The team?  L'?quipe, c'est moi :-) Having said that I do try to program
not only with my fictitious replacement in mind, should I be hit by the
proverbial bus, but also my future self, and so tend to err on the side
of 'simple'.

> Given that Python does not (yet) have a switch/case construct, does the table
> idea assume a greater importance? Could it be (reasonably) expected that
> pythonista will understand such more readily?
> IMHO the table is easier to maintain - particularly 'six months later', but
> likely 'appears' as a 'natural effect' of re-factoring*, once I've implemented
> the beginnings of an if-ladder and 'found' some of those common follow-up
> functions.
> * although, like you, I may well 'see' it at the design-stage, particularly if
> there are a number (more) cases to implement!
> Is functional "similar"[ity] (as above) the most-appropriate metric? What about
> the number of decision-points in the code? (ie please re-consider "effectively
> the same decision")
> 	# which data-function to execute?
> 	if action==get
> 		do get_data
> 	elif action == add
> 		do add_data
> 	elif ...
> 	...
> 	# now 'the work' has been done, what is the follow-through?
> 	if action=get
> 		do present_data
> 	elif action == add
> 		report success/fail
> 	...

In my current case this is there is a one-to-one relationship between
the 'work' and the 'follow-through', so this approach doesn't seem that
appealing to me.  However I have other cases in which the data to be
displayed comes from multiple sources where the structure above might
be a good fit.

Having said that, I do prefer the idea of having a single jumping off
point, be it a dispatch table or a single if-then-else ladder, which
reflects the actions which the user can take and where the unpleasant
details of, say, how the data are gathered are deferred to a lower level
of the code.

> Back to the comment about maintainability - is there a risk that an extension
> requested in six months' time will tempt the coding of a new "do" function AND
> induce failure to notice that there must be a corresponding additional function
> in the second 'ladder'?
> This becomes worse if we re-factor to re-use/share some of the follow-throughs,
> eg
> 	...
> 	elif action in [ add, delete, update]
> 		report success/fail
> 	...
> because, at first glance, the second 'ladder' appears to be quite dissimilar -
> is a different length, doesn't have the condition-clause symmetry of the first,
> etc! So, our fictional maintainer can ignore the second, correct???
> Consider SRP again, and add DRY: should the "despatch" decision be made once, or
> twice, or... ?

With my non-fictional-maintainer-cum-six-month-older-self hat on I think
you have made a good case for the dispatch table, which is my latent
preference anyway, especially in connection with the 'do/display'
metafunctions and the fact that in my current case DRY implies that the
dispatch decision should only be made once.

Thanks again for the input!



This signature is currently under construction.