利科夫替换原则指出，如果程序模块使用基类，则基类的引用可以被派生类替换，而不会影响程序模块的功能。

派生类型必须能够完全替代它们的基类型。

示例- java中的协变返回类型。

LSP关注不变量。

经典示例由以下伪代码声明给出(实现略):

class Rectangle {
    int getHeight()
    void setHeight(int value) {
        postcondition: width didn’t change
    }
    int getWidth()
    void setWidth(int value) {
        postcondition: height didn’t change
    }
}

class Square extends Rectangle { }

现在我们有一个问题，尽管接口匹配。原因是我们违反了源自正方形和矩形数学定义的不变量。getter和setter的工作方式，矩形应该满足以下不变量:

void invariant(Rectangle r) {
    r.setHeight(200)
    r.setWidth(100)
    assert(r.getHeight() == 200 and r.getWidth() == 100)
}

然而，Square的正确实现必须违反这个不变量(以及显式后置条件)，因此它不是Rectangle的有效替代品。

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?”

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。

我建议您阅读这篇文章:违反利斯科夫替换原则(LSP)。

你可以在那里找到一个解释，什么是利斯科夫替换原则，一般线索帮助你猜测你是否已经违反了它，一个方法的例子，将帮助你使你的类层次结构更安全。

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. [...]