Liskov's Substitution Principle(LSP) All the time we design a program module and we create some class hierarchies. Then we extend some classes creating some derived classes. We must make sure that the new derived classes just extend without replacing the functionality of old classes. Otherwise, the new classes can produce undesired effects when they are used in existing program modules. Liskov's Substitution Principle states that if a program module is using a Base class, then the reference to the Base class can be replaced with a Derived class without affecting the functionality of the program module.

例子:

Below is the classic example for which the Liskov's Substitution Principle is violated. In the example, 2 classes are used: Rectangle and Square. Let's assume that the Rectangle object is used somewhere in the application. We extend the application and add the Square class. The square class is returned by a factory pattern, based on some conditions and we don't know the exact what type of object will be returned. But we know it's a Rectangle. We get the rectangle object, set the width to 5 and height to 10 and get the area. For a rectangle with width 5 and height 10, the area should be 50. Instead, the result will be 100

    // Violation of Likov's Substitution Principle
class Rectangle {
    protected int m_width;
    protected int m_height;

    public void setWidth(int width) {
        m_width = width;
    }

    public void setHeight(int height) {
        m_height = height;
    }

    public int getWidth() {
        return m_width;
    }

    public int getHeight() {
        return m_height;
    }

    public int getArea() {
        return m_width * m_height;
    }
}

class Square extends Rectangle {
    public void setWidth(int width) {
        m_width = width;
        m_height = width;
    }

    public void setHeight(int height) {
        m_width = height;
        m_height = height;
    }

}

class LspTest {
    private static Rectangle getNewRectangle() {
        // it can be an object returned by some factory ...
        return new Square();
    }

    public static void main(String args[]) {
        Rectangle r = LspTest.getNewRectangle();

        r.setWidth(5);
        r.setHeight(10);
        // user knows that r it's a rectangle.
        // It assumes that he's able to set the width and height as for the base
        // class

        System.out.println(r.getArea());
        // now he's surprised to see that the area is 100 instead of 50.
    }
}

结论: 这个原则只是开闭原则的延伸 意味着我们必须确保新的派生类正在扩展 基类而不改变它们的行为。

参见:开闭原则

对于更好的结构，还有一些类似的概念:约定优于配置

长话短说，让我们留下矩形矩形和正方形，实际的例子，当扩展一个父类时，你必须要么保留确切的父API，要么扩展IT。

假设您有一个基本ItemsRepository。

class ItemsRepository
{
    /**
    * @return int Returns number of deleted rows
    */
    public function delete()
    {
        // perform a delete query
        $numberOfDeletedRows = 10;

        return $numberOfDeletedRows;
    }
}

以及扩展它的子类:

class BadlyExtendedItemsRepository extends ItemsRepository
{
    /**
     * @return void Was suppose to return an INT like parent, but did not, breaks LSP
     */
    public function delete()
    {
        // perform a delete query
        $numberOfDeletedRows = 10;

        // we broke the behaviour of the parent class
        return;
    }
}

然后，您可以让客户端使用Base ItemsRepository API并依赖它。

/**
 * Class ItemsService is a client for public ItemsRepository "API" (the public delete method).
 *
 * Technically, I am able to pass into a constructor a sub-class of the ItemsRepository
 * but if the sub-class won't abide the base class API, the client will get broken.
 */
class ItemsService
{
    /**
     * @var ItemsRepository
     */
    private $itemsRepository;

    /**
     * @param ItemsRepository $itemsRepository
     */
    public function __construct(ItemsRepository $itemsRepository)
    {
        $this->itemsRepository = $itemsRepository;
    }

    /**
     * !!! Notice how this is suppose to return an int. My clients expect it based on the
     * ItemsRepository API in the constructor !!!
     *
     * @return int
     */
    public function delete()
    {
        return $this->itemsRepository->delete();
    }
} 

当用子类替换父类破坏了API的契约时，LSP就被破坏了。

class ItemsController
{
    /**
     * Valid delete action when using the base class.
     */
    public function validDeleteAction()
    {
        $itemsService = new ItemsService(new ItemsRepository());
        $numberOfDeletedItems = $itemsService->delete();

        // $numberOfDeletedItems is an INT :)
    }

    /**
     * Invalid delete action when using a subclass.
     */
    public function brokenDeleteAction()
    {
        $itemsService = new ItemsService(new BadlyExtendedItemsRepository());
        $numberOfDeletedItems = $itemsService->delete();

        // $numberOfDeletedItems is a NULL :(
    }
}

你可以在我的课程中学习更多关于编写可维护软件的知识:https://www.udemy.com/enterprise-php/

使用LSP的一个重要例子是在软件测试中。

如果我有一个类a，它是B的一个符合lsp的子类，那么我可以重用B的测试套件来测试a。

为了完全测试子类A，我可能需要添加更多的测试用例，但至少我可以重用所有超类B的测试用例。

实现这一点的一种方法是构建McGregor所说的“用于测试的并行层次结构”:我的ATest类将继承BTest。然后需要某种形式的注入来确保测试用例使用类型A的对象而不是类型B的对象(一个简单的模板方法模式就可以了)。

注意，对所有子类实现重用超级测试套件实际上是一种测试这些子类实现是否与lsp兼容的方法。因此，人们也可以主张应该在任何子类的上下文中运行超类测试套件。

另请参阅对Stackoverflow问题的回答“我是否可以实现一系列可重用测试来测试接口的实现?”

使用指向基类的指针或引用的函数必须能够在不知道它的情况下使用派生类的对象。

当我第一次阅读LSP时，我认为这是一个非常严格的含义，本质上等同于接口实现和类型安全强制转换。这意味着语言本身要么保证LSP，要么不保证LSP。例如，在严格意义上，ThreeDBoard当然可以取代Board，就编译器而言。

在阅读了更多关于LSP的概念之后，我发现LSP的解释通常比这更广泛。

简而言之，对于客户端代码来说，“知道”指针后面的对象是派生类型而不是指针类型的含义并不仅限于类型安全。对LSP的遵守也可以通过探测对象的实际行为进行测试。也就是说，检查对象的状态和方法参数对方法调用结果或从对象抛出的异常类型的影响。

再次回到示例，理论上Board方法可以在ThreeDBoard上很好地工作。然而，在实践中，在不妨碍ThreeDBoard打算添加的功能的情况下，防止客户端可能无法正确处理的行为差异是非常困难的。

掌握了这些知识后，评估LSP粘附性可以成为一个很好的工具，可以确定何时组合机制更适合扩展现有功能，而不是继承。

以Board数组的形式实现ThreeDBoard会有用吗?

也许你想把不同平面上的ThreeDBoard切片作为一个板。在这种情况下，您可能希望为Board抽象出一个接口(或抽象类)，以允许多种实现。

就外部接口而言，您可能希望为TwoDBoard和ThreeDBoard提取一个Board接口(尽管上述方法都不适合)。

罗伯特·马丁有一篇关于利斯科夫替换原理的优秀论文。它讨论了可能违反原则的微妙和不那么微妙的方式。

论文的一些相关部分(注意，第二个例子被大量压缩):

A Simple Example of a Violation of LSP One of the most glaring violations of this principle is the use of C++ Run-Time Type Information (RTTI) to select a function based upon the type of an object. i.e.: void DrawShape(const Shape& s) { if (typeid(s) == typeid(Square)) DrawSquare(static_cast<Square&>(s)); else if (typeid(s) == typeid(Circle)) DrawCircle(static_cast<Circle&>(s)); } Clearly the DrawShape function is badly formed. It must know about every possible derivative of the Shape class, and it must be changed whenever new derivatives of Shape are created. Indeed, many view the structure of this function as anathema to Object Oriented Design. Square and Rectangle, a More Subtle Violation. However, there are other, far more subtle, ways of violating the LSP. Consider an application which uses the Rectangle class as described below: class Rectangle { public: void SetWidth(double w) {itsWidth=w;} void SetHeight(double h) {itsHeight=w;} double GetHeight() const {return itsHeight;} double GetWidth() const {return itsWidth;} private: double itsWidth; double itsHeight; }; [...] Imagine that one day the users demand the ability to manipulate squares in addition to rectangles. [...] Clearly, a square is a rectangle for all normal intents and purposes. Since the ISA relationship holds, it is logical to model the Square class as being derived from Rectangle. [...] Square will inherit the SetWidth and SetHeight functions. These functions are utterly inappropriate for a Square, since the width and height of a square are identical. This should be a significant clue that there is a problem with the design. However, there is a way to sidestep the problem. We could override SetWidth and SetHeight [...] But consider the following function: void f(Rectangle& r) { r.SetWidth(32); // calls Rectangle::SetWidth } If we pass a reference to a Square object into this function, the Square object will be corrupted because the height won’t be changed. This is a clear violation of LSP. The function does not work for derivatives of its arguments. [...]