LSP是关于类的契约的规则:如果基类满足契约，则LSP派生的类也必须满足该契约。

在Pseudo-python

class Base:
   def Foo(self, arg): 
       # *... do stuff*

class Derived(Base):
   def Foo(self, arg):
       # *... do stuff*

如果每次在派生对象上调用Foo，它给出的结果与在Base对象上调用Foo完全相同，只要arg是相同的。

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。

在一个非常简单的句子中，我们可以说:

子类不能违背它的基类特征。它必须有能力。我们可以说这和子类型是一样的。

LSP说“对象应该被它们的子类型替换”。 另一方面，这一原则指向

子类永远不应该破坏父类的类型定义。

通过以下示例，可以更好地理解LSP。

没有太阳能发电:

public interface CustomerLayout{

    public void render();
}


public FreeCustomer implements CustomerLayout {
     ...
    @Override
    public void render(){
        //code
    }
}


public PremiumCustomer implements CustomerLayout{
    ...
    @Override
    public void render(){
        if(!hasSeenAd)
            return; //it isn`t rendered in this case
        //code
    }
}

public void renderView(CustomerLayout layout){
    layout.render();
}

LSP修复:

public interface CustomerLayout{
    public void render();
}


public FreeCustomer implements CustomerLayout {
     ...
    @Override
    public void render(){
        //code
    }
}


public PremiumCustomer implements CustomerLayout{
    ...
    @Override
    public void render(){
        if(!hasSeenAd)
            showAd();//it has a specific behavior based on its requirement
        //code
    }
}

public void renderView(CustomerLayout layout){
    layout.render();
}

它指出，如果C是E的子类型，则E可以替换为C类型的对象，而不会改变或破坏程序的行为。简单地说，派生类应该可以替代它们的父类。例如，如果一个农民的儿子是农民，那么他可以代替他的父亲工作，但如果一个农民的儿子是板球运动员，那么他就不能代替他的父亲工作。

违反的例子:

public class Plane{

  public void startEngine(){}      

}        
public class FighterJet extends Plane{}
    
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}

在给定的例子中，fighter和PaperPlane类都扩展了包含startEngine()方法的Plane类。所以很明显，战斗机可以启动引擎，但纸飞机不能，所以它破坏LSP。

PaperPlane类虽然扩展了Plane类，但应该可以替代Plane类，但它不是Plane实例可以被替换的合格实体，因为纸飞机不能启动引擎，因为它没有引擎。好的例子是，

受人尊敬的例子:

public class Plane{ 
} 
public class RealPlane{

  public void startEngine(){} 

}
public class FighterJet extends RealPlane{} 
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}

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. [...]