Creating instances of python sub classes of a Rust struct from factory methods on the struct

[Divy1211]

The Problem

I have a struct in rust that is intended to be sub classed by python classes, and I need to provide factory class methods to this struct. Currently, there seems to be no direct way to instantiate an instance of a sub class with an already existing instance of the Rust struct.

Minimal Example

use pyo3::prelude::*;
use pyo3::types::PyType;
use rand::random;

#[pyclass(subclass)]
pub struct Spam {
    #[pyo3(get)]
    eggs: i32,
}

#[pymethods]
impl Spam {    
    #[classmethod]
    fn mk<'py>(cls: Bound<'py, PyType>) -> Self {
        // Naive attempt to return Spam, considering it may
        // automatically get converted to subtype like `#[new]`
        Spam {
            eggs: random(),
        }
    }
}

and in python:

from test_pyo3 import Spam

class Child(Spam):
    pass

print(Child.mk()) # <builtins.Spam object at 0x74993d11bf10>

The mk function doesn't automatically convert the returned Spam into a Child instance

Current Workaround

The best I've managed to do is the following:

#[pymethods]
impl Spam {
    #[new]
    fn new_py() -> Self {
        Spam {
            eggs: -1,
        }
    }

    #[classmethod]
    fn mk<'py>(cls: Bound<'py, PyType>) -> PyResult<Bound<'py, PyAny>> {
        let spam = Spam {
            eggs: random(),
        };
        
        let sub = cls.call0()?;
        let mut parent_spam = sub.downcast::<Spam>()?.borrow_mut();
        *parent_spam = spam;
        
        Ok(sub)
    }
}

print(Child.mk()) # <__main__.Child object at 0x744d73506d50>

However, this is not ideal, since I had to define a new, and in a real scenario if new is non trivial to call/or is costly, this is not feasible.

Suggestion

Would it be possible to add something like this:

#[pymethods]
impl Spam {    
    #[classmethod]
    fn mk<'py>(cls: Bound<'py, PyType>) -> Bound<'py, PyAny> {
        cls.from_super(Spam {
            eggs: random(),
        })
    }
}

Note: This still keeps it possible to return the base type if so desired, since it doesn't automatically converting a classmethod's return value to the subtype like #[new]

Implementation

I'd be happy to give implementing this a go, but I'm not sure how hard it might be, and may need some guidance/mentoring!

[davidhewitt]

Great question. Closely related to this is other subclassing issues like #4443, #1647, #1644 and #1637 (comment)

I think the API you propose fits a very relevant need, but I'd slightly prefer if instead of adding one new function a bit ad-hoc we tried to do a more complete review of what we are currently missing and where we don't match Python semantics.

Ideally we can then do a small API refresh to close a bunch of related awkward cases. Maybe targeting 0.24