Dataclasses and property decorator

It sure does work:

from dataclasses import dataclass

@dataclass
class Test:
    _name: str="schbell"

    @property
    def name(self) -> str:
        return self._name

    @name.setter
    def name(self, v: str) -> None:
        self._name = v

t = Test()
print(t.name) # schbell
t.name = "flirp"
print(t.name) # flirp
print(t) # Test(_name='flirp')

In fact, why should it not? In the end, what you get is just a good old class, derived from type:

print(type(t)) # <class '__main__.Test'>
print(type(Test)) # <class 'type'>

Maybe that's why properties are nowhere mentioned specifically. However, the PEP-557's Abstract mentions the general usability of well-known Python class features:

Because Data Classes use normal class definition syntax, you are free to use inheritance, metaclasses, docstrings, user-defined methods, class factories, and other Python class features.

TWO VERSIONS THAT SUPPORT DEFAULT VALUES

Most published approaches don't provide a readable way to set a default value for the property, which is quite an important part of dataclass. Here are two possible ways to do that.

The first way is based on the approach referenced by @JorenV. It defines the default value in _name = field() and utilises the observation that if no initial value is specified, then the setter is passed the property object itself:

from dataclasses import dataclass, field


@dataclass
class Test:
    name: str
    _name: str = field(init=False, repr=False, default='baz')

    @property
    def name(self) -> str:
        return self._name

    @name.setter
    def name(self, value: str) -> None:
        if type(value) is property:
            # initial value not specified, use default
            value = Test._name
        self._name = value


def main():
    obj = Test(name='foo')
    print(obj)                  # displays: Test(name='foo')

    obj = Test()
    obj.name = 'bar'
    print(obj)                  # displays: Test(name='bar')

    obj = Test()
    print(obj)                  # displays: Test(name='baz')


if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

The second way is based on the same approach as @Conchylicultor: bypassing the dataclass machinery by overwriting the field outside the class definition.

Personally I think this way is cleaner and more readable than the first because it follows the normal dataclass idiom to define the default value and requires no 'magic' in the setter.

Even so I'd prefer everything to be self-contained... perhaps some clever person can find a way to incorporate the field update in dataclass.__post_init__() or similar?

from dataclasses import dataclass


@dataclass
class Test:
    name: str = 'foo'

    @property
    def _name(self):
        return self._my_str_rev[::-1]

    @_name.setter
    def _name(self, value):
        self._my_str_rev = value[::-1]


# --- has to be called at module level ---
Test.name = Test._name


def main():

    obj = Test()
    print(obj)                      # displays: Test(name='foo')

    obj = Test()
    obj.name = 'baz'
    print(obj)                      # displays: Test(name='baz')

    obj = Test(name='bar')
    print(obj)                      # displays: Test(name='bar')


if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()