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?”

让我们用Java来说明:

class TrasportationDevice
{
   String name;
   String getName() { ... }
   void setName(String n) { ... }

   double speed;
   double getSpeed() { ... }
   void setSpeed(double d) { ... }

   Engine engine;
   Engine getEngine() { ... }
   void setEngine(Engine e) { ... }

   void startEngine() { ... }
}

class Car extends TransportationDevice
{
   @Override
   void startEngine() { ... }
}

这里没有问题，对吧?汽车绝对是一种交通工具，在这里我们可以看到它重写了其超类的startEngine()方法。

让我们添加另一个交通工具:

class Bicycle extends TransportationDevice
{
   @Override
   void startEngine() /*problem!*/
}

现在一切都不按计划进行了!是的，自行车是一种交通工具，但是，它没有发动机，因此，startEngine()方法不能实现。

这些都是违反利斯科夫代换法的问题 原则导致，他们通常可以被一个公认的 方法，该方法什么也不做，甚至不能实现。

这些问题的解决方案是一个正确的继承层次结构，在我们的例子中，我们将通过区分带引擎和不带引擎的运输设备类别来解决问题。尽管自行车是一种交通工具，但它没有发动机。在这个例子中，我们对交通工具的定义是错误的。它不应该有引擎。

我们可以像下面这样重构TransportationDevice类:

class TrasportationDevice
{
   String name;
   String getName() { ... }
   void setName(String n) { ... }

   double speed;
   double getSpeed() { ... }
   void setSpeed(double d) { ... }
}

现在我们可以为非机动设备扩展TransportationDevice。

class DevicesWithoutEngines extends TransportationDevice
{  
   void startMoving() { ... }
}

并为机动设备扩展TransportationDevice。这里更适合添加Engine对象。

class DevicesWithEngines extends TransportationDevice
{  
   Engine engine;
   Engine getEngine() { ... }
   void setEngine(Engine e) { ... }

   void startEngine() { ... }
}

因此，我们的Car类变得更加专门化，同时坚持利斯科夫替换原则。

class Car extends DevicesWithEngines
{
   @Override
   void startEngine() { ... }
}

我们的Bicycle类也遵循利斯科夫替换原理。

class Bicycle extends DevicesWithoutEngines
{
   @Override
   void startMoving() { ... }
}

关于LSP的一个很好的例子(在我最近听到的播客中，Bob叔叔给出了一个例子)是，有时候在自然语言中听起来正确的东西在代码中却不太适用。

在数学中，正方形是长方形。实际上，它是矩形的专门化。“is a”使您想用继承来建模。然而，如果在代码中你从Rectangle派生出Square，那么Square应该可以在任何你想要Rectangle的地方使用。这就导致了一些奇怪的行为。

假设你在你的Rectangle基类上有SetWidth和SetHeight方法;这似乎完全合乎逻辑。然而，如果你的矩形引用指向一个正方形，那么SetWidth和SetHeight没有意义，因为设置一个会改变另一个来匹配它。在这种情况下，Square未能通过矩形的利斯科夫替换测试，并且让Square继承Rectangle的抽象是一个糟糕的抽象。

你们都应该看看其他用励志海报解释的无价的坚实原则。

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. [...]

简单来说，LSP是指同一超类的对象应该能够在不破坏任何东西的情况下相互交换。

例如，如果我们有一个从Animal类派生的Cat和Dog类，那么任何使用Animal类的函数都应该能够使用Cat或Dog，并且行为正常。

这里有一个清单来确定你是否违反了利斯科夫法则。

如果你违反了以下项目之一->，你违反了里斯科夫。 如果你不违反任何->不能得出任何结论。

检查表:

No new exceptions should be thrown in derived class: If your base class threw ArgumentNullException then your sub classes were only allowed to throw exceptions of type ArgumentNullException or any exceptions derived from ArgumentNullException. Throwing IndexOutOfRangeException is a violation of Liskov. Pre-conditions cannot be strengthened: Assume your base class works with a member int. Now your sub-type requires that int to be positive. This is strengthened pre-conditions, and now any code that worked perfectly fine before with negative ints is broken. Post-conditions cannot be weakened: Assume your base class required all connections to the database should be closed before the method returned. In your sub-class you overrode that method and left the connection open for further reuse. You have weakened the post-conditions of that method. Invariants must be preserved: The most difficult and painful constraint to fulfill. Invariants are sometimes hidden in the base class and the only way to reveal them is to read the code of the base class. Basically you have to be sure when you override a method anything unchangeable must remain unchanged after your overridden method is executed. The best thing I can think of is to enforce these invariant constraints in the base class but that would not be easy. History Constraint: When overriding a method you are not allowed to modify an unmodifiable property in the base class. Take a look at these code and you can see Name is defined to be unmodifiable (private set) but SubType introduces new method that allows modifying it (through reflection): public class SuperType { public string Name { get; private set; } public SuperType(string name, int age) { Name = name; Age = age; } } public class SubType : SuperType { public void ChangeName(string newName) { var propertyType = base.GetType().GetProperty("Name").SetValue(this, newName); } }

还有2项:方法参数的逆变性和返回类型的协方差。但这在c#中是不可能的(我是c#开发人员)，所以我不关心它们。