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。

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. [...]

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/

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。

以下是这篇文章的摘录，很好地澄清了事情:

(. .为了理解一些原则，重要的是要意识到它什么时候被违反了。这就是我现在要做的。

违反这一原则意味着什么?它意味着对象不履行用接口表示的抽象所施加的契约。换句话说，这意味着您错误地识别了抽象。

考虑下面的例子:

interface Account
{
    /**
     * Withdraw $money amount from this account.
     *
     * @param Money $money
     * @return mixed
     */
    public function withdraw(Money $money);
}
class DefaultAccount implements Account
{
    private $balance;
    public function withdraw(Money $money)
    {
        if (!$this->enoughMoney($money)) {
            return;
        }
        $this->balance->subtract($money);
    }
}

是否违反LSP?是的。这是因为帐户合同告诉我们帐户将被提取，但情况并非总是如此。那么，我该怎么做才能解决这个问题呢?我只是修改了合同:

interface Account
{
    /**
     * Withdraw $money amount from this account if its balance is enough.
     * Otherwise do nothing.
     *
     * @param Money $money
     * @return mixed
     */
    public function withdraw(Money $money);
}

Voilà，现在合同已得到满足。

这种微妙的违反通常会使客户有能力区分所使用的具体对象之间的差异。例如，给定第一个Account的契约，它看起来像下面这样:

class Client
{
    public function go(Account $account, Money $money)
    {
        if ($account instanceof DefaultAccount && !$account->hasEnoughMoney($money)) {
            return;
        }
        $account->withdraw($money);
    }
}

而且，这自动违反了开闭原则(即取款要求)。因为你永远不知道如果违反合同的对象没有足够的钱会发生什么。它可能什么都不返回，可能会抛出异常。所以你必须检查它是否hasEnoughMoney()——这不是接口的一部分。因此这种强制的依赖于具体类的检查违反了OCP。

这一点也解决了我经常遇到的关于LSP违反的误解。它说:“如果父母的行为在孩子身上改变了，那么它就违反了LSP。”然而，事实并非如此——只要孩子不违反父母的契约。