Is it bad practice to provide your own setter or should I use setproperty? - julia

Question

Suppose if I had the following Employee struct:
mutable struct Employee
_id::Int64
_first_name::String
_last_name::String
function Employee(_id::Int64,_first_name::String,_last_name::String)
# validation left out.
new(_id,_first_name,_last_name)
end
end
If I wanted to implement my own setproperty!() I can do:
function setproperty!(value::Employee,name::Symbol,x)
if name == :_id
if !isa(x,Int64)
throw(ErrorException("ID type is invalid"))
end
setfield!(value,:_id,x)
end
if name == :_first_name
if is_white_space(x)
throw(ErrorException("First Name cannot be blank!"))
end
setfield!(value,:_first_name,x)
end
if name == :_last_name
if is_white_space(x)
throw(ErrorException("Last Name cannot be blank!"))
end
setfield!(value,:_last_name,x)
end
end
Have I implemented setproperty!() correctly?
The reason why I use setfield!() for _first_name and _last_name, is because if I do:
if name == :_first_name
setproperty!(value,:_first_name,x) # or value._first_name = x
end
it causes a StackOverflowError because it's recursively using setproperty!().
I don't really like the use of setproperty!(), because as the number of parameters grows, so would setproperty!().
It also brings to mind using Enum and if statements (only we've switched Enum with Symbol).
One workaround I like, is to document that the fields are meant to be private and use the provided setter to set the field:
function set_first_name(obj::Employee,first_name::AbstractString)
# Validate first_name before assigning it.
obj._first_name = first_name
end
The function is smaller and has a single purpose.
Of course this doesn't prevent someone from using setproperty!(), setfield!() or value._field_name = x, but if you're going to circumvent the provided setter then you'll have the handle the consequences for doing it.

Answer 1

Of course this doesn't prevent someone from using setproperty!(), setfield!() or value._field_name = x, but if you're going to circumvent the provided setter then you'll have the handle the consequences for doing it.
I would recommend you to do this, defining getter,setter functions, instead of overloading getproperty/setproperty!. on the wild, the main use i saw on overloading getproperty/setproperty! is when fields can be calculated from the data. for a getter/setter pattern, i recommend you to use the ! convention:
getter:
function first_name(value::Employee)
return value._first_name
end
setter:
function first_name!(value::Employee,text::String)
#validate here
value._first_name = text
return value._first_name
end
if your struct is mutable, it could be that some fields are uninitialized. you could add a getter with default, by adding a method:
function first_name(value::Employee,default::String)
value_stored = value._first_name
if is_initialized(value_stored) #define is_initialized function
return value_stored
else
return default
end
end
with a setter/getter with default, the only difference between first_name(val,text) and first_name!(val,text) would be the mutability of val, but the result is the same. useful if you are doing mutable vs immutable functions. as you said it, the getproperty/setproperty! is cumbersome in comparison. If you want to disallow accessing the fields, you could do:
Base.getproperty(val::Employee,key::Symbol) = throw(error("use the getter functions instead!")
Base.setproperty!(val::Employee,key::Symbol,x) = throw(error("use the setter functions instead!")
Disallowing the syntax sugar of val.key and val.key = x. (if someone really want raw access, there is still getfield/setfield!, but they were warned.)
Finally, i found this recomendation in the julia docs, that recommends getter/setter methods over direct field access
https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/style-guide/#Prefer-exported-methods-over-direct-field-access