Use #is_a? to Determine the Instance's Class Name in Ruby If the object given is an instance of a class , it returns true ; otherwise, it returns false .
If the class has a parent class, Ruby searches in the class. The search includes going into the modules mixed into the parent class; if we had the method defined in a module mixed into the Creature class, the method will get called.
In Ruby, a method provides functionality to an Object. A class method provides functionality to a class itself, while an instance method provides functionality to one instance of a class. We cannot call an instance method on the class itself, and we cannot directly call a class method on an instance.
I don't know why everyone is suggesting you should be using instance_methods
and include?
when method_defined?
does the job.
class Test
def hello; end
end
Test.method_defined? :hello #=> true
NOTE
In case you are coming to Ruby from another OO language OR you think that method_defined
means ONLY methods that you defined explicitly with:
def my_method
end
then read this:
In Ruby, a property (attribute) on your model is basically a method also. So method_defined?
will also return true for properties, not just methods.
For example:
Given an instance of a class that has a String attribute first_name
:
<instance>.first_name.class #=> String
<instance>.class.method_defined?(:first_name) #=> true
since first_name
is both an attribute and a method (and a string of type String).
You can use method_defined?
as follows:
String.method_defined? :upcase # => true
Much easier, portable and efficient than the instance_methods.include?
everyone else seems to be suggesting.
Keep in mind that you won't know if a class responds dynamically to some calls with method_missing
, for example by redefining respond_to?
, or since Ruby 1.9.2 by defining respond_to_missing?
.
Actually this doesn't work for both Objects and Classes.
This does:
class TestClass
def methodName
end
end
So with the given answer, this works:
TestClass.method_defined? :methodName # => TRUE
But this does NOT work:
t = TestClass.new
t.method_defined? : methodName # => ERROR!
So I use this for both classes and objects:
Classes:
TestClass.methods.include? 'methodName' # => TRUE
Objects:
t = TestClass.new
t.methods.include? 'methodName' # => TRUE
The answer to "Given a class, see if instance has method (Ruby)" is better. Apparently Ruby has this built-in, and I somehow missed it. My answer is left for reference, regardless.
Ruby classes respond to the methods instance_methods
and public_instance_methods
. In Ruby 1.8, the first lists all instance method names in an array of strings, and the second restricts it to public methods. The second behavior is what you'd most likely want, since respond_to?
restricts itself to public methods by default, as well.
Foo.public_instance_methods.include?('bar')
In Ruby 1.9, though, those methods return arrays of symbols.
Foo.public_instance_methods.include?(:bar)
If you're planning on doing this often, you might want to extend Module
to include a shortcut method. (It may seem odd to assign this to Module
instead of Class
, but since that's where the instance_methods
methods live, it's best to keep in line with that pattern.)
class Module
def instance_respond_to?(method_name)
public_instance_methods.include?(method_name)
end
end
If you want to support both Ruby 1.8 and Ruby 1.9, that would be a convenient place to add the logic to search for both strings and symbols, as well.
Try Foo.instance_methods.include? :bar
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With