Say I am monkey patching a method in a class, how could I call the overridden method from the overriding method? I.e. Something a bit like super
E.g.
class Foo def bar() "Hello" end end class Foo def bar() super() + " World" end end >> Foo.new.bar == "Hello World"
In Python, the term monkey patch refers to dynamic (or run-time) modifications of a class or module. In Python, we can actually change the behavior of code at run-time. We use above module (monk) in below code and change behavior of func() at run-time by assigning different value.
In Ruby, a Monkey Patch (MP) is referred to as a dynamic modification to a class and by a dynamic modification to a class means to add new or overwrite existing methods at runtime. This ability is provided by ruby to give more flexibility to the coders.
EDIT: It has been 9 years since I originally wrote this answer, and it deserves some cosmetic surgery to keep it current.
You can see the last version before the edit here.
You can’t call the overwritten method by name or keyword. That’s one of the many reasons why monkey patching should be avoided and inheritance be preferred instead, since obviously you can call the overridden method.
So, if at all possible, you should prefer something like this:
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end class ExtendedFoo < Foo def bar super + ' World' end end ExtendedFoo.new.bar # => 'Hello World'
This works, if you control creation of the Foo
objects. Just change every place which creates a Foo
to instead create an ExtendedFoo
. This works even better if you use the Dependency Injection Design Pattern, the Factory Method Design Pattern, the Abstract Factory Design Pattern or something along those lines, because in that case, there is only place you need to change.
If you do not control creation of the Foo
objects, for example because they are created by a framework that is outside of your control (like ruby-on-rails for example), then you could use the Wrapper Design Pattern:
require 'delegate' class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end class WrappedFoo < DelegateClass(Foo) def initialize(wrapped_foo) super end def bar super + ' World' end end foo = Foo.new # this is not actually in your code, it comes from somewhere else wrapped_foo = WrappedFoo.new(foo) # this is under your control wrapped_foo.bar # => 'Hello World'
Basically, at the boundary of the system, where the Foo
object comes into your code, you wrap it into another object, and then use that object instead of the original one everywhere else in your code.
This uses the Object#DelegateClass
helper method from the delegate
library in the stdlib.
Module#prepend
: Mixin PrependingThe two methods above require changing the system to avoid monkey patching. This section shows the preferred and least invasive method of monkey patching, should changing the system not be an option.
Module#prepend
was added to support more or less exactly this use case. Module#prepend
does the same thing as Module#include
, except it mixes in the mixin directly below the class:
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end module FooExtensions def bar super + ' World' end end class Foo prepend FooExtensions end Foo.new.bar # => 'Hello World'
Note: I also wrote a little bit about Module#prepend
in this question: Ruby module prepend vs derivation
I have seen some people try (and ask about why it doesn’t work here on StackOverflow) something like this, i.e. include
ing a mixin instead of prepend
ing it:
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end module FooExtensions def bar super + ' World' end end class Foo include FooExtensions end
Unfortunately, that won’t work. It’s a good idea, because it uses inheritance, which means that you can use super
. However, Module#include
inserts the mixin above the class in the inheritance hierarchy, which means that FooExtensions#bar
will never be called (and if it were called, the super
would not actually refer to Foo#bar
but rather to Object#bar
which doesn’t exist), since Foo#bar
will always be found first.
The big question is: how can we hold on to the bar
method, without actually keeping around an actual method? The answer lies, as it does so often, in functional programming. We get a hold of the method as an actual object, and we use a closure (i.e. a block) to make sure that we and only we hold on to that object:
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end class Foo old_bar = instance_method(:bar) define_method(:bar) do old_bar.bind(self).() + ' World' end end Foo.new.bar # => 'Hello World'
This is very clean: since old_bar
is just a local variable, it will go out of scope at the end of the class body, and it is impossible to access it from anywhere, even using reflection! And since Module#define_method
takes a block, and blocks close over their surrounding lexical environment (which is why we are using define_method
instead of def
here), it (and only it) will still have access to old_bar
, even after it has gone out of scope.
Short explanation:
old_bar = instance_method(:bar)
Here we are wrapping the bar
method into an UnboundMethod
method object and assigning it to the local variable old_bar
. This means, we now have a way to hold on to bar
even after it has been overwritten.
old_bar.bind(self)
This is a bit tricky. Basically, in Ruby (and in pretty much all single-dispatch based OO languages), a method is bound to a specific receiver object, called self
in Ruby. In other words: a method always knows what object it was called on, it knows what its self
is. But, we grabbed the method directly from a class, how does it know what its self
is?
Well, it doesn’t, which is why we need to bind
our UnboundMethod
to an object first, which will return a Method
object that we can then call. (UnboundMethod
s cannot be called, because they don’t know what to do without knowing their self
.)
And what do we bind
it to? We simply bind
it to ourselves, that way it will behave exactly like the original bar
would have!
Lastly, we need to call the Method
that is returned from bind
. In Ruby 1.9, there is some nifty new syntax for that (.()
), but if you are on 1.8, you can simply use the call
method; that’s what .()
gets translated to anyway.
Here are a couple of other questions, where some of those concepts are explained:
alias_method
chainThe problem we are having with our monkey patching is that when we overwrite the method, the method is gone, so we cannot call it anymore. So, let’s just make a backup copy!
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end class Foo alias_method :old_bar, :bar def bar old_bar + ' World' end end Foo.new.bar # => 'Hello World' Foo.new.old_bar # => 'Hello'
The problem with this is that we have now polluted the namespace with a superfluous old_bar
method. This method will show up in our documentation, it will show up in code completion in our IDEs, it will show up during reflection. Also, it still can be called, but presumably we monkey patched it, because we didn’t like its behavior in the first place, so we might not want other people to call it.
Despite the fact that this has some undesirable properties, it has unfortunately become popularized through AciveSupport’s Module#alias_method_chain
.
In case you only need the different behavior in a few specific places and not throughout the whole system, you can use Refinements to restrict the monkey patch to a specific scope. I am going to demonstrate it here using the Module#prepend
example from above:
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end module ExtendedFoo module FooExtensions def bar super + ' World' end end refine Foo do prepend FooExtensions end end Foo.new.bar # => 'Hello' # We haven’t activated our Refinement yet! using ExtendedFoo # Activate our Refinement Foo.new.bar # => 'Hello World' # There it is!
You can see a more sophisticated example of using Refinements in this question: How to enable monkey patch for specific method?
Before the Ruby community settled on Module#prepend
, there were multiple different ideas floating around that you may occasionally see referenced in older discussions. All of these are subsumed by Module#prepend
.
One idea was the idea of method combinators from CLOS. This is basically a very lightweight version of a subset of Aspect-Oriented Programming.
Using syntax like
class Foo def bar:before # will always run before bar, when bar is called end def bar:after # will always run after bar, when bar is called # may or may not be able to access and/or change bar’s return value end end
you would be able to “hook into” the execution of the bar
method.
It is however not quite clear if and how you get access to bar
’s return value within bar:after
. Maybe we could (ab)use the super
keyword?
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end class Foo def bar:after super + ' World' end end
The before combinator is equivalent to prepend
ing a mixin with an overriding method that calls super
at the very end of the method. Likewise, the after combinator is equivalent to prepend
ing a mixin with an overriding method that calls super
at the very beginning of the method.
You can also do stuff before and after calling super
, you can call super
multiple times, and both retrieve and manipulate super
’s return value, making prepend
more powerful than method combinators.
class Foo def bar:before # will always run before bar, when bar is called end end # is the same as module BarBefore def bar # will always run before bar, when bar is called super end end class Foo prepend BarBefore end
and
class Foo def bar:after # will always run after bar, when bar is called # may or may not be able to access and/or change bar’s return value end end # is the same as class BarAfter def bar original_return_value = super # will always run after bar, when bar is called # has access to and can change bar’s return value end end class Foo prepend BarAfter end
old
keywordThis idea adds a new keyword similar to super
, which allows you to call the overwritten method the same way super
lets you call the overridden method:
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end class Foo def bar old + ' World' end end Foo.new.bar # => 'Hello World'
The main problem with this is that it is backwards incompatible: if you have method called old
, you will no longer be able to call it!
super
in an overriding method in a prepend
ed mixin is essentially the same as old
in this proposal.
redef
keywordSimilar to above, but instead of adding a new keyword for calling the overwritten method and leaving def
alone, we add a new keyword for redefining methods. This is backwards compatible, since the syntax currently is illegal anyway:
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end class Foo redef bar old + ' World' end end Foo.new.bar # => 'Hello World'
Instead of adding two new keywords, we could also redefine the meaning of super
inside redef
:
class Foo def bar 'Hello' end end class Foo redef bar super + ' World' end end Foo.new.bar # => 'Hello World'
redef
ining a method is equivalent to overriding the method in a prepend
ed mixin. super
in the overriding method behaves like super
or old
in this proposal.
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