ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

Why does PyCharm propose to change method to static?

The new pycharm release (3.1.3 community edition) proposes to convert the methods that don't work with the current object's state to static.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/l0TgW.png

What is the practical reason for that? Some kind of micro-performance(-or-memory)-optimization?

@Wooble: there is return 1 as a single line implementation of the method. "More" doesn't contain anything useful

j
jolvi

PyCharm "thinks" that you might have wanted to have a static method, but you forgot to declare it to be static (using the @staticmethod decorator).

PyCharm proposes this because the method does not use self in its body and hence does not actually change the class instance. Hence the method could be static, i.e. callable without passing a class instance or without even having created a class instance.


So many people have answered with this flavour response. I would add though, if you know it's definitely not going to be a static method, then include a "throw NotImplementedError" while you are there to be certain you don't use it without completing it.
There might be cases where PyCharm's warning is unjustified in that we neither want a static method nor to change the state. On the other hand, if the method is not yet implemented, it seems always a good idea to raise a NotImplementedError.
I have the case that my default implementation returns a constant, but my subclasses are allowed to return a value depending on self. In this case the warning is neglectable, and I mark it with # noinspection PyMethodMayBeStatic. It's a pitty that IntelliJ IDEA doesn't offer adding this disabling comment in the context menus for this warning.
I suggest changing severity of this PyCharm inspection from "Warning" to "No highlighting, only fix" in PyCharm's preferences. (It's producing many false positives for me.)
B
Bob Stein

Agreed with @jolvi, @ArundasR, and others, the warning happens on a member function that doesn't use self.

If you're sure PyCharm is wrong, that the function should not be a @staticmethod, and if you value zero warnings, you can make this one go away two different ways:

Workaround #1

def bar(self):
    self.is_not_used()
    doing_something_without_self()

def is_not_used(self):
    pass

Workaround #2 [Thanks @DavidPärsson]

# noinspection PyMethodMayBeStatic
def bar(self):
    doing_something_without_self()

The application I had for this (the reason I could not use @staticmethod) was in making a table of handler functions for responding to a protocol subtype field. All handlers had to be the same form of course (static or nonstatic). But some didn't happen to do anything with the instance. If I made those static I'd get "TypeError: 'staticmethod' object is not callable".

In support of the OP's consternation, suggesting you add staticmethod whenever you can, goes against the principle that it's easier to make code less restrictive later, than to make it more -- making a method static makes it less restrictive now, in that you can call class.f() instead of instance.f().

Guesses as to why this warning exists:

It advertises staticmethod. It makes developers aware of something they may well have intended.

As @JohnWorrall's points out, it gets your attention when self was inadvertently left out of the function.

It's a cue to rethink the object model; maybe the function does not belong in this class at all.


"making a method static makes it less restrictive now" --- it does not at all. Eg: polymorphic methods
I think the last point bears repeating: "why do you make it a method, when it's clearly a function?" Keep the stuff that really needs an instance separate from the structural stuff that deals with some aspect. You can then easily subdivide it into separate module.
Adding # noinspection PyMethodMayBeStatic above the method or class suppresses the warning, and is in my opinion better than calling an empty method.
@Talha: self is not removed in Python3 at all.
@Talha, I'm not understanding your point. I can't think of any way that self in Python 2 would not be necessary in Python 3. Can you give an example or link?
P
Prune

I think that the reason for this warning is config in Pycharm. You can uncheck the selection Method may be static in Editor->Inspection


My question was why such an inspection even exists. I understand I can switch it off. Sorry, not an answer.
Not the answer to the question but very useful, thanks!
C
Community

I agree with the answers given here (method does not use self and therefore could be decorated with @staticmethod).

I'd like to add that you maybe want to move the method to a top-level function instead of a static method inside a class. For details see this question and the accepted answer: python - should I use static methods or top-level functions

Moving the method to a top-level function will fix the PyCharm warning, too.


Really helpful answer - maybe PyCharm should rename the warning to 'method may be static or top-level function'. When refactoring out a method, pycharm will create a top-level function and not a static method anyway, if self is not a parameter.
@tlo +1 for mentioning the decorator. I have a class with a method that does not use self and therefore could be top-level, however, this does not feel logical when looking at what this method does - as top-level it would look more of a global method, while it is in fact a small helper method for instances created from that class. So to keep my code logically organised, the decorator is the perfect solution.
J
Jan Vlcinsky

I can imagine following advantages of having a class method defined as static one:

you can call the method just using class name, no need to instantiate it.

remaining advantages are probably marginal if present at all:

might run a bit faster

save a bit of memory


Yep. But the thing is - I'm not using it as a static method. Otherwise it would already be static. So PyCharm advices to do it with no good reason (?). "remaining advantages are probably marginal if present at all" --- yep, exactly. But if it's the case - it's a silly advice from PyCharm
@zerkms this is how it goes with some charming instances :-)
Static methods are an enemy to building good software. They void many principles so the bit running faster is not the point (cause they run in ram so its fast in both cases) and as you know computers now have bunch of memory so that is not a problem anymore. Also note your first thought: That is a procedural behavior not an object oriented one.
J
Junuxx

It might be a bit messy, but sometimes you just don't need to access self, but you would prefer to keep the method in the class and not make it static. Or you just want to avoid adding a bunch of unsightly decorators. Here are some potential workarounds for that situation.

If your method only has side effects and you don't care about what it returns:

def bar(self):
    doing_something_without_self()
    return self

If you do need the return value:

def bar(self):
    result = doing_something_without_self()
    if self:
        return result

Now your method is using self, and the warning goes away!


I would advise against doing this. Why make your code messier and more confusing just to make a warning for a specific IDE go away? It's just a warning to get you to review it. You don't have to do what it says if it's not the best solution. The IDE doesn't always know what's best for your code.
C
Community

Since you didn't refer to self in the bar method body, PyCharm is asking if you might have wanted to make bar static. In other programming languages, like Java, there are obvious reasons for declaring a static method. In Python, the only real benefit to a static method (AFIK) is being able to call it without an instance of the class. However, if that's your only reason, you're probably better off going with a top-level function - as note here.

In short, I'm not one hundred percent sure why it's there. I'm guessing they'll probably remove it in an upcoming release.


J
John Worrall

This error message just helped me a bunch, as I hadn't realized that I'd accidentally written my function using my testing example player

my_player.attributes[item] 

instead of the correct way

self.attributes[item]

J
Junyu Wu

The reason why Pycharm make it as a warning because Python will pass self as the first argument when calling a none static method (not add @staticmethod). Pycharm knows it.

Example:

class T:
    def test():
        print "i am a normal method!"

t = T()
t.test()
output:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "F:/Workspace/test_script/test.py", line 28, in <module>
    T().test()
TypeError: test() takes no arguments (1 given)

I'm from Java, in Java "self" is called "this", you don't need write self(or this) as argument in class method. You can just call self as you need inside the method. But Python "has to" pass self as a method argument.

By understanding this you don't need any Workaround as @BobStein answer.


It passes self so what?
@zerkms '@staticmethod' doesn't pass 'self'
I just cited you: "Python will pass self as the first argument... Pycharm knows it.". So what? Pycharm knows it, I know it. What's the reason to mark the method?
@zerkms because Pycharm thinks your first method param may not be the "self". Normally ppl won't design a method param and never use it. Pycharm thinks you are creating a static method and didn't realize that the first param is not the "self", so it puts a warning by default. This confusion caused by the programing language design. I suggest you follow the programing design(even it seems not a good pattern), add "staticmethod", to avoid confusion. It's totally fine if you add a "self" then never use it if you prefer. What I say is just a different opion by understanding programing design.
K
KalC

Rather than implementing another method just to work around this error in a particular IDE, does the following make sense? PyCharm doesn't suggest anything with this implementation.

class Animal:
    def __init__(self):
        print("Animal created")

    def eat(self):
        not self # <-- This line here
        print("I am eating")


my_animal = Animal()

My question was rather about rationale behind this suggestion, not workarounds.
Got that. Wondering if this can be a way to signal the interpreter that this is not a static method.