How to implement an abstract class in Ruby

Question

I know there is no concept of an abstract class in Ruby. But if it needs to be implemented, how do I go about it? I tried something like this:

class A
  def self.new
    raise 'Doh! You are trying to write Java in Ruby!'
  end
end

class B < A
  ...
  ...
end

But, when I try to instantiate B, it is internally going to call A.new which is going to raise the exception.

Also, modules cannot be instantiated, but they cannot be inherited too. Making the new method private will also not work.

Does anyone have any pointers?

Answer 1

Just to chime in late here, I think that there's no reason to stop somebody from instantiating the abstract class, especially because they can add methods to it on the fly.

Duck-typing languages, like Ruby, use the presence/absence or behavior of methods at runtime to determine whether they should be called or not. Therefore your question, as it applies to an abstract method, makes sense

def get_db_name
   raise 'this method should be overriden and return the db name'
end

and that should be about the end of the story. The only reason to use abstract classes in Java is to insist that certain methods get "filled-in" while others have their behavior in the abstract class. In a duck-typing language, the focus is on methods, not on classes/types, so you should move your worries to that level.

In your question, you're basically trying to recreate the abstract keyword from Java, which is a code-smell for doing Java in Ruby.

Answer 2

I don't like using abstract classes in Ruby (there's almost always a better way). If you really think it's the best technique for the situation though, you can use the following snippet to be more declarative about which methods are abstract:

module Abstract
  def abstract_methods(*args)
    args.each do |name|
      class_eval(<<-END, __FILE__, __LINE__)
        def #{name}(*args)
          raise NotImplementedError.new("You must implement #{name}.")
        end
      END
      # important that this END is capitalized, since it marks the end of <<-END
    end
  end
end

require 'rubygems'
require 'rspec'

describe "abstract methods" do
  before(:each) do
    @klass = Class.new do
      extend Abstract

      abstract_methods :foo, :bar
    end
  end

  it "raises NoMethodError" do
    proc {
      @klass.new.foo
    }.should raise_error(NoMethodError)
  end

  it "can be overridden" do
    subclass = Class.new(@klass) do
      def foo
        :overridden
      end
    end

    subclass.new.foo.should == :overridden
  end
end

Basically, you just call abstract_methods with the list of methods that are abstract, and when they get called by an instance of the abstract class, a NotImplementedError exception will be raised.

Answer 3

Try this:

class A
  def initialize
    raise 'Doh! You are trying to instantiate an abstract class!'
  end
end

class B < A
  def initialize
  end
end

Answer 4

For anyone in the Rails world, implementing an ActiveRecord model as an abstract class is done with this declaration in the model file:

self.abstract_class = true

Answer 5

class A
  private_class_method :new
end

class B < A
  public_class_method :new
end

Answer 6

In the last 6 1/2 years of programming Ruby, I haven't needed an abstract class once.

If you're thinking you need an abstract class, you're thinking too much in a language that provides/requires them, not in Ruby as such.

As others have suggested, a mixin is more appropriate for things that are supposed to be interfaces (as Java defines them), and rethinking your design is more appropriate for things that "need" abstract classes from other languages like C++.

Update as of 2022: I haven’t needed abstract classes in Ruby in 20 years of use. Everything that all of the folks commenting on my response are saying is addressed by actually learning Ruby and using the appropriate tools, like modules (which even give you common implementations). There are people on teams I have managed who have created classes that have base implementation that fail (like an abstract class), but these are mostly a waste of coding because NoMethodError would produce the exact same result as an AbstractClassError in production.

Answer 7

My 2¢: I opt for a simple, lightweight DSL mixin:

module Abstract
  extend ActiveSupport::Concern

  included do

    # Interface for declaratively indicating that one or more methods are to be
    # treated as abstract methods, only to be implemented in child classes.
    #
    # Arguments:
    # - methods (Symbol or Array) list of method names to be treated as
    #   abstract base methods
    #
    def self.abstract_methods(*methods)
      methods.each do |method_name|

        define_method method_name do
          raise NotImplementedError, 'This is an abstract base method. Implement in your subclass.'
        end

      end
    end

  end

end

# Usage:
class AbstractBaseWidget
  include Abstract
  abstract_methods :widgetify
end

class SpecialWidget < AbstractBaseWidget
end

SpecialWidget.new.widgetify # <= raises NotImplementedError

And, of course, adding another error for initializing the base class would be trivial in this case.

Answer 8

What purpose are you trying to serve with an abstract class? There is probably a better way to do it in Ruby, but you didn't give any details.

My pointer is this; use a mixin not inheritance.

Answer 9

You can try 3 rubygems:
interface
abstract
simple abstract

Answer 10

Personally, I raise NotImplementedError in methods of abstract classes. But you may want to leave it out of the new method, for the reasons you mentioned.

Answer 11

If you want to go with an uninstantiable class, in your A.new method, check if self == A before throwing the error.

But really, a module seems more like what you want here. For example, Enumerable is the sort of thing that might be an abstract class in other languages. You technically can't subclass them, but calling include SomeModule achieves roughly the same goal. Is there some reason this won't work for you?

Answer 12

Another answer:

module Abstract
  def self.append_features(klass)
    # access an object's copy of its class's methods & such
    metaclass = lambda { |obj| class << obj; self ; end }

    metaclass[klass].instance_eval do
      old_new = instance_method(:new)
      undef_method :new

      define_method(:inherited) do |subklass|
        metaclass[subklass].instance_eval do
          define_method(:new, old_new)
        end
      end
    end
  end
end

This relies on the normal #method_missing to report unimplemented methods, but keeps abstract classes from being implemented (even if they have an initialize method)

class A
  include Abstract
end
class B < A
end

B.new #=> #<B:0x24ea0>
A.new # raises #<NoMethodError: undefined method `new' for A:Class>

Like the other posters have said, you should probably be using a mixin though, rather than an abstract class.

Answer 13

There's also this small abstract_type gem, allowing to declare abstract classes and modules in an unobstrusive way.

Example (from the README.md file):

class Foo
  include AbstractType

  # Declare abstract instance method
  abstract_method :bar

  # Declare abstract singleton method
  abstract_singleton_method :baz
end

Foo.new  # raises NotImplementedError: Foo is an abstract type
Foo.baz  # raises NotImplementedError: Foo.baz is not implemented

# Subclassing to allow instantiation
class Baz < Foo; end

object = Baz.new
object.bar  # raises NotImplementedError: Baz#bar is not implemented

Answer 14

I did it this way, so it redefines new on child class to find a new on non abstract class. I still don't see any practical in using abstract classes in ruby.

puts 'test inheritance'
module Abstract
  def new
    throw 'abstract!'
  end
  def inherited(child)
    @abstract = true
    puts 'inherited'
    non_abstract_parent = self.superclass;
    while non_abstract_parent.instance_eval {@abstract}
      non_abstract_parent = non_abstract_parent.superclass
    end
    puts "Non abstract superclass is #{non_abstract_parent}"
    (class << child;self;end).instance_eval do
      define_method :new, non_abstract_parent.method('new')
      # # Or this can be done in this style:
      # define_method :new do |*args,&block|
        # non_abstract_parent.method('new').unbind.bind(self).call(*args,&block)
      # end
    end
  end
end

class AbstractParent
  extend Abstract
  def initialize
    puts 'parent initializer'
  end
end

class Child < AbstractParent
  def initialize
    puts 'child initializer'
    super
  end
end

# AbstractParent.new
puts Child.new

class AbstractChild < AbstractParent
  extend Abstract
end

class Child2 < AbstractChild

end
puts Child2.new

Answer 15

There is nothing wrong with your approach. Raising an error in the initializer seems fine, as long as all your subclasses override initialize of course. But you don't want to define self.new like that. Here's what I would do:

class A
  class AbstractClassInstiationError < RuntimeError; end
  def initialize
    raise AbstractClassInstiationError, "Cannot instantiate this class directly, etc..."
  end
end

Another approach would be put all that functionality in a module, which as you mentioned can never be instantiated. Then, include the module in your classes rather than inheriting from another class. However, this would break things like super.

It depends on how you want to structure it, although modules seem like a cleaner solution for solving the problem of "How do I write some stuff that is deigned for other classes to use"

Answer 16

Though this doesn't feel like Ruby, you can do this:

class A
  def initialize
    raise 'abstract class' if self.instance_of?(A)

    puts 'initialized'
  end
end

class B < A
end

The results:

>> A.new
  (rib):2:in `main'
  (rib):2:in `new'
  (rib):3:in `initialize'
RuntimeError: abstract class
>> B.new
initialized
=> #<B:0x00007f80620d8358>
>>

Answer 17

2-lines gem : https://rubygems.org/gems/abstract