Show object as name value pair instead of instance variable

Question

I'm trying to implement a gem that is redis wrapper for other library i.e to store the ruby object in the redis.

all work well but what I want is when I do

[Class].all It give object like this

[#<Peagon:0x007fba589de3a0 @name="a", @omg=false ,@payload="one",@handler="--- one\n...\n"> ,#<Peagon:0x007fba589de1a0 @name="b", @omg=true,@payload="two",@handler="--- two\n...\n">]

but instead I want it to be look like how active record present the object

[#<Peagon name: "a",omg: false ,handler: "--- one\n...\n"> ,#<Peagon name="b", omg: true,handler: "--- two\n...\n">]

The reason for this that I not interested in showing the user the @payload instance variable because that is something set by the other library

so basically like this happen [My gem]

class Peagon
 include SomeModule
 attr_accessor :name,:omg,:handler 
 def initialize(options)
   @name = options[:name]
   @omg  = options
   self.payload_object = options[:payload_object]
 end

end

Now the [Other Library] has this module in it

module SomeModule 
 def payload=(object)
   @payload ||= object
   self.handler = @payload.to_yaml

 end 

 def payload
   @payload ||= YAML.load(self.handler)
 end

end

NOTE :

Overwriting the payload method from other library is not in my mind

Now is it possible to get what I meant above

mu is too short · Accepted Answer · 2019-03-22 01:33:56Z

1

Looks like you just want to adjust what irb, the Rails console, and friends will display for objects of your class. If so, they just call inspect:

inspect → string

Returns a string containing a human-readable representation of obj. By default, show the class name and the list of the instance variables and their values (by calling inspect on each of them). User defined classes should override this method to make better representation of obj.

So all you need to do is provide your own inspect implementation, something like:

def inspect
  "#<#{class} name: #{@name.inspect} ...>"
end

edited Mar 22, 2019 at 1:33

answered Aug 14, 2013 at 17:02

mu is too short

436k71 gold badges863 silver badges822 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

4 Comments

Ratatouille Over a year ago

Opps I forget to mention I tried this approach too and I gave on this because the inspect return string object thereby making invoking of object/instance method impossible but in activerecord it give you the object of the class so you can invoke the object/instance method on it

Ratatouille Over a year ago

Any other approach that would give me back the object of the class with the desired behavior

mu is too short Over a year ago

Sorry, I don't understand. When I say Model in the Rails console, I get Model(id: integer, ...) as a result because that's what inspect says for the class; if I say Model.first, I get #<Model id: ...> because that's what inspect says for the instance. None of this has anything to do with getting an "object of the class with the desired behavior".

Ratatouille Over a year ago

Opps :P I was thinking uptil now that inspect would return the string object cross checked it thanks

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Show object as name value pair instead of instance variable

NOTE :

1 Answer 1

4 Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

NOTE :

1 Answer 1

4 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related