# Objective
@cart noticed some issues with my work in
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/17348#discussion_r2001815637,
which I somehow missed before merging the PR.
## Solution
- feature gate the UiPickingPlugin correctly
- don't manually add the picking plugins
## Testing
Ran the debug_picking and sprite_picking examples (for UI and sprites
respectively): both seem to work fine.
# Objective
Currently, our picking backends are inconsistent:
- Mesh picking and sprite picking both have configurable opt in/out
behavior. UI picking does not.
- Sprite picking uses `SpritePickingCamera` and `Pickable` for control,
but mesh picking uses `RayCastPickable`.
- `MeshPickingPlugin` is not a part of `DefaultPlugins`.
`SpritePickingPlugin` and `UiPickingPlugin` are.
## Solution
- Add configurable opt in/out behavior to UI picking (defaults to opt
out).
- Replace `RayCastPickable` with `MeshPickingCamera` and `Pickable`.
- Remove `SpritePickingPlugin` and `UiPickingPlugin` from
`DefaultPlugins`.
## Testing
Ran some examples.
## Migration Guide
`UiPickingPlugin` and `SpritePickingPlugin` are no longer included in
`DefaultPlugins`. They must be explicitly added.
`RayCastPickable` has been replaced in favor of the `MeshPickingCamera`
and `Pickable` components. You should add them to cameras and entities,
respectively, if you have `MeshPickingSettings::require_markers` set to
`true`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
Correct spelling
## Solution
Fix typos, specifically ones that I found in folders other than /crates
## Testing
CI
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
This adds support for one-to-many non-fragmenting relationships (with
planned paths for fragmenting and non-fragmenting many-to-many
relationships). "Non-fragmenting" means that entities with the same
relationship type, but different relationship targets, are not forced
into separate tables (which would cause "table fragmentation").
Functionally, this fills a similar niche as the current Parent/Children
system. The biggest differences are:
1. Relationships have simpler internals and significantly improved
performance and UX. Commands and specialized APIs are no longer
necessary to keep everything in sync. Just spawn entities with the
relationship components you want and everything "just works".
2. Relationships are generalized. Bevy can provide additional built in
relationships, and users can define their own.
**REQUEST TO REVIEWERS**: _please don't leave top level comments and
instead comment on specific lines of code. That way we can take
advantage of threaded discussions. Also dont leave comments simply
pointing out CI failures as I can read those just fine._
## Built on top of what we have
Relationships are implemented on top of the Bevy ECS features we already
have: components, immutability, and hooks. This makes them immediately
compatible with all of our existing (and future) APIs for querying,
spawning, removing, scenes, reflection, etc. The fewer specialized APIs
we need to build, maintain, and teach, the better.
## Why focus on one-to-many non-fragmenting first?
1. This allows us to improve Parent/Children relationships immediately,
in a way that is reasonably uncontroversial. Switching our hierarchy to
fragmenting relationships would have significant performance
implications. ~~Flecs is heavily considering a switch to non-fragmenting
relations after careful considerations of the performance tradeoffs.~~
_(Correction from @SanderMertens: Flecs is implementing non-fragmenting
storage specialized for asset hierarchies, where asset hierarchies are
many instances of small trees that have a well defined structure)_
2. Adding generalized one-to-many relationships is currently a priority
for the [Next Generation Scene / UI
effort](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/14437).
Specifically, we're interested in building reactions and observers on
top.
## The changes
This PR does the following:
1. Adds a generic one-to-many Relationship system
3. Ports the existing Parent/Children system to Relationships, which now
lives in `bevy_ecs::hierarchy`. The old `bevy_hierarchy` crate has been
removed.
4. Adds on_despawn component hooks
5. Relationships can opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior, meaning
that the entire relationship hierarchy is despawned when
`entity.despawn()` is called. The built in Parent/Children hierarchies
enable this behavior, and `entity.despawn_recursive()` has been removed.
6. `world.spawn` now applies commands after spawning. This ensures that
relationship bookkeeping happens immediately and removes the need to
manually flush. This is in line with the equivalent behaviors recently
added to the other APIs (ex: insert).
7. Removes the ValidParentCheckPlugin (system-driven / poll based) in
favor of a `validate_parent_has_component` hook.
## Using Relationships
The `Relationship` trait looks like this:
```rust
pub trait Relationship: Component + Sized {
type RelationshipSources: RelationshipSources<Relationship = Self>;
fn get(&self) -> Entity;
fn from(entity: Entity) -> Self;
}
```
A relationship is a component that:
1. Is a simple wrapper over a "target" Entity.
2. Has a corresponding `RelationshipSources` component, which is a
simple wrapper over a collection of entities. Every "target entity"
targeted by a "source entity" with a `Relationship` has a
`RelationshipSources` component, which contains every "source entity"
that targets it.
For example, the `Parent` component (as it currently exists in Bevy) is
the `Relationship` component and the entity containing the Parent is the
"source entity". The entity _inside_ the `Parent(Entity)` component is
the "target entity". And that target entity has a `Children` component
(which implements `RelationshipSources`).
In practice, the Parent/Children relationship looks like this:
```rust
#[derive(Relationship)]
#[relationship(relationship_sources = Children)]
pub struct Parent(pub Entity);
#[derive(RelationshipSources)]
#[relationship_sources(relationship = Parent)]
pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>);
```
The Relationship and RelationshipSources derives automatically implement
Component with the relevant configuration (namely, the hooks necessary
to keep everything in sync).
The most direct way to add relationships is to spawn entities with
relationship components:
```rust
let a = world.spawn_empty().id();
let b = world.spawn(Parent(a)).id();
assert_eq!(world.entity(a).get::<Children>().unwrap(), &[b]);
```
There are also convenience APIs for spawning more than one entity with
the same relationship:
```rust
world.spawn_empty().with_related::<Children>(|s| {
s.spawn_empty();
s.spawn_empty();
})
```
The existing `with_children` API is now a simpler wrapper over
`with_related`. This makes this change largely non-breaking for existing
spawn patterns.
```rust
world.spawn_empty().with_children(|s| {
s.spawn_empty();
s.spawn_empty();
})
```
There are also other relationship APIs, such as `add_related` and
`despawn_related`.
## Automatic recursive despawn via the new on_despawn hook
`RelationshipSources` can opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior,
which will despawn all related entities in the relationship hierarchy:
```rust
#[derive(RelationshipSources)]
#[relationship_sources(relationship = Parent, despawn_descendants)]
pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>);
```
This means that `entity.despawn_recursive()` is no longer required.
Instead, just use `entity.despawn()` and the relevant related entities
will also be despawned.
To despawn an entity _without_ despawning its parent/child descendants,
you should remove the `Children` component first, which will also remove
the related `Parent` components:
```rust
entity
.remove::<Children>()
.despawn()
```
This builds on the on_despawn hook introduced in this PR, which is fired
when an entity is despawned (before other hooks).
## Relationships are the source of truth
`Relationship` is the _single_ source of truth component.
`RelationshipSources` is merely a reflection of what all the
`Relationship` components say. By embracing this, we are able to
significantly improve the performance of the system as a whole. We can
rely on component lifecycles to protect us against duplicates, rather
than needing to scan at runtime to ensure entities don't already exist
(which results in quadratic runtime). A single source of truth gives us
constant-time inserts. This does mean that we cannot directly spawn
populated `Children` components (or directly add or remove entities from
those components). I personally think this is a worthwhile tradeoff,
both because it makes the performance much better _and_ because it means
theres exactly one way to do things (which is a philosophy we try to
employ for Bevy APIs).
As an aside: treating both sides of the relationship as "equivalent
source of truth relations" does enable building simple and flexible
many-to-many relationships. But this introduces an _inherent_ need to
scan (or hash) to protect against duplicates.
[`evergreen_relations`](https://github.com/EvergreenNest/evergreen_relations)
has a very nice implementation of the "symmetrical many-to-many"
approach. Unfortunately I think the performance issues inherent to that
approach make it a poor choice for Bevy's default relationship system.
## Followup Work
* Discuss renaming `Parent` to `ChildOf`. I refrained from doing that in
this PR to keep the diff reasonable, but I'm personally biased toward
this change (and using that naming pattern generally for relationships).
* [Improved spawning
ergonomics](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/16920)
* Consider adding relationship observers/triggers for "relationship
targets" whenever a source is added or removed. This would replace the
current "hierarchy events" system, which is unused upstream but may have
existing users downstream. I think triggers are the better fit for this
than a buffered event queue, and would prefer not to add that back.
* Fragmenting relations: My current idea hinges on the introduction of
"value components" (aka: components whose type _and_ value determines
their ComponentId, via something like Hashing / PartialEq). By labeling
a Relationship component such as `ChildOf(Entity)` as a "value
component", `ChildOf(e1)` and `ChildOf(e2)` would be considered
"different components". This makes the transition between fragmenting
and non-fragmenting a single flag, and everything else continues to work
as expected.
* Many-to-many support
* Non-fragmenting: We can expand Relationship to be a list of entities
instead of a single entity. I have largely already written the code for
this.
* Fragmenting: With the "value component" impl mentioned above, we get
many-to-many support "for free", as it would allow inserting multiple
copies of a Relationship component with different target entities.
Fixes#3742 (If this PR is merged, I think we should open more targeted
followup issues for the work above, with a fresh tracking issue free of
the large amount of less-directed historical context)
Fixes#17301Fixes#12235Fixes#15299Fixes#15308
## Migration Guide
* Replace `ChildBuilder` with `ChildSpawnerCommands`.
* Replace calls to `.set_parent(parent_id)` with
`.insert(Parent(parent_id))`.
* Replace calls to `.replace_children()` with `.remove::<Children>()`
followed by `.add_children()`. Note that you'll need to manually despawn
any children that are not carried over.
* Replace calls to `.despawn_recursive()` with `.despawn()`.
* Replace calls to `.despawn_descendants()` with
`.despawn_related::<Children>()`.
* If you have any calls to `.despawn()` which depend on the children
being preserved, you'll need to remove the `Children` component first.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
PR #17225 allowed for sprite picking to be opt-in. After some
discussion, it was agreed that `PickingBehavior` should be used to
opt-in to sprite picking behavior for entities. This leads to
`PickingBehavior` having two purposes: mark an entity for use in a
backend, and describe how it should be picked. Discussion led to the
name `Pickable`making more sense (also: this is what the component was
named before upstreaming).
A follow-up pass will be made after this PR to unify backends.
## Solution
Replace all instances of `PickingBehavior` and `picking_behavior` with
`Pickable` and `pickable`, respectively.
## Testing
CI
## Migration Guide
Change all instances of `PickingBehavior` to `Pickable`.
# Objective
With the introduction of bevy_input_focus, the uses of "focus" in
bevy_picking are quite confusing and make searching hard.
Users will intuitively think these concepts are related, but they
actually aren't.
## Solution
Rename / rephrase all uses of "focus" in bevy_picking to refer to
"hover", since this is ultimately related to creating the `HoverMap`.
## Migration Guide
Various terms related to "focus" in `bevy_picking` have been renamed to
refer to "hover" to avoid confusion with `bevy_input_focus`. In
particular:
- The `update_focus` system has been renamed to `generate_hovermap`
- `PickSet::Focus` and `PostFocus` have been renamed to `Hover` and
`PostHover`
- The `bevy_picking::focus` module has been renamed to
`bevy_picking::hover`
- The `is_focus_enabled` field on `PickingPlugin` has been renamed to
`is_hover_enabled`
- The `focus_should_run` run condition has been renamed to
`hover_should_run`
# Objective
Fixes#16192
## Solution
I renamed the Pointer<Down/Up> to <Pressed/Released> and then I resolved
all the errors.
Renamed variables like "is_down" to "is_pressed" to maintain
consistency.
Modified the docs in places where 'down/up' were used to maintain
consistency.
## Testing
I haven't tested this in any way beside the checks from rust analyzer
and the examples in the examples/ directory.
---
## Migration Guide
### `bevy_picking/src/pointer.rs`:
#### `enum PressDirection`:
- `PressDirection::Down` changes to `PressDirection::Pressed`.
- `PressDirection::Up` changes to `PressDirection::Released`.
These changes are also relevant when working with `enum PointerAction`
### `bevy_picking/src/events.rs`:
Clicking and pressing Events in events.rs categories change from [Down],
[Up], [Click] to [Pressed], [Released], [Click].
- `struct Down` changes to `struct Pressed` - fires when a pointer
button is pressed over the 'target' entity.
- `struct Up` changes to `struct Released` - fires when a pointer button
is released over the 'target' entity.
- `struct Click` now fires when a pointer sends a Pressed event followed
by a Released event on the same 'target'.
- `struct DragStart` now fires when the 'target' entity receives a
pointer Pressed event followed by a pointer Move event.
- `struct DragEnd` now fires when the 'target' entity is being dragged
and receives a pointer Released event.
- `PickingEventWriters<'w>::down_events: EventWriter<'w, Pointer<Down>>`
changes to `PickingEventWriters<'w>::pressed_events: EventWriter<'w,
Pointer<Pressed>>`.
- `PickingEventWriters<'w>::up_events changes to
PickingEventWriters<'w>::released_events`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Harun Ibram <harun.ibram@outlook.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
- A `Trigger` has multiple associated `Entity`s - the entity observing
the event, and the entity that was targeted by the event.
- The field `entity: Entity` encodes no semantic information about what
the entity is used for, you can already tell that it's an `Entity` by
the type signature!
## Solution
- Rename `trigger.entity()` to `trigger.target()`
---
## Changelog
- `Trigger`s are associated with multiple entities. `Trigger::entity()`
has been renamed to `Trigger::target()` to reflect the semantics of the
entity being returned.
## Migration Guide
- Rename `Trigger::entity()` to `Trigger::target()`.
- Rename `ObserverTrigger::entity` to `ObserverTrigger::target`
# Objective
- Fixes#16235
## Solution
- Both Bevy and AccessKit export a `Node` struct, to reduce confusion
Bevy will no longer re-export `AccessKit` from `bevy_a11y`
## Testing
- Tested locally
## Migration Guide
```diff
# main.rs
-- use bevy_a11y::{
-- accesskit::{Node, Rect, Role},
-- AccessibilityNode,
-- };
++ use bevy_a11y::AccessibilityNode;
++ use accesskit::{Node, Rect, Role};
# Cargo.toml
++ accesskit = "0.17"
```
- Users will need to add `accesskit = "0.17"` to the dependencies
section of their `Cargo.toml` file and update their `accesskit` use
statements to come directly from the external crate instead of
`bevy_a11y`.
- Make sure to keep the versions of `accesskit` aligned with the
versions Bevy uses.
# Objective
- Bumps accesskit and accesskit_winit dependencies
## Solution
- Fixes several breaking API changes introduced in accesskit 0.23.
## Testing
- Tested with the ui example and seems to work comparably
# Objective
Continue improving the user experience of our UI Node API in the
direction specified by [Bevy's Next Generation Scene / UI
System](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/14437)
## Solution
As specified in the document above, merge `Style` fields into `Node`,
and move "computed Node fields" into `ComputedNode` (I chose this name
over something like `ComputedNodeLayout` because it currently contains
more than just layout info. If we want to break this up / rename these
concepts, lets do that in a separate PR). `Style` has been removed.
This accomplishes a number of goals:
## Ergonomics wins
Specifying both `Node` and `Style` is now no longer required for
non-default styles
Before:
```rust
commands.spawn((
Node::default(),
Style {
width: Val::Px(100.),
..default()
},
));
```
After:
```rust
commands.spawn(Node {
width: Val::Px(100.),
..default()
});
```
## Conceptual clarity
`Style` was never a comprehensive "style sheet". It only defined "core"
style properties that all `Nodes` shared. Any "styled property" that
couldn't fit that mold had to be in a separate component. A "real" style
system would style properties _across_ components (`Node`, `Button`,
etc). We have plans to build a true style system (see the doc linked
above).
By moving the `Style` fields to `Node`, we fully embrace `Node` as the
driving concept and remove the "style system" confusion.
## Next Steps
* Consider identifying and splitting out "style properties that aren't
core to Node". This should not happen for Bevy 0.15.
---
## Migration Guide
Move any fields set on `Style` into `Node` and replace all `Style`
component usage with `Node`.
Before:
```rust
commands.spawn((
Node::default(),
Style {
width: Val::Px(100.),
..default()
},
));
```
After:
```rust
commands.spawn(Node {
width: Val::Px(100.),
..default()
});
```
For any usage of the "computed node properties" that used to live on
`Node`, use `ComputedNode` instead:
Before:
```rust
fn system(nodes: Query<&Node>) {
for node in &nodes {
let computed_size = node.size();
}
}
```
After:
```rust
fn system(computed_nodes: Query<&ComputedNode>) {
for computed_node in &computed_nodes {
let computed_size = computed_node.size();
}
}
```
# Objective
Currently text is recomputed unnecessarily on any changes to its color,
which is extremely expensive.
## Solution
Split up `TextStyle` into two separate components `TextFont` and
`TextColor`.
## Testing
I added this system to `many_buttons`:
```rust
fn set_text_colors_changed(mut colors: Query<&mut TextColor>) {
for mut text_color in colors.iter_mut() {
text_color.set_changed();
}
}
```
reports ~4fps on main, ~50fps with this PR.
## Migration Guide
`TextStyle` has been renamed to `TextFont` and its `color` field has
been moved to a separate component named `TextColor` which newtypes
`Color`.
**Ready for review. Examples migration progress: 100%.**
# Objective
- Implement https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/15014
## Solution
This implements [cart's
proposal](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/15014#discussioncomment-10574459)
faithfully except for one change. I separated `TextSpan` from
`TextSpan2d` because `TextSpan` needs to require the `GhostNode`
component, which is a `bevy_ui` component only usable by UI.
Extra changes:
- Added `EntityCommands::commands_mut` that returns a mutable reference.
This is a blocker for extension methods that return something other than
`self`. Note that `sickle_ui`'s `UiBuilder::commands` returns a mutable
reference for this reason.
## Testing
- [x] Text examples all work.
---
## Showcase
TODO: showcase-worthy
## Migration Guide
TODO: very breaking
### Accessing text spans by index
Text sections are now text sections on different entities in a
hierarchy, Use the new `TextReader` and `TextWriter` system parameters
to access spans by index.
Before:
```rust
fn refresh_text(mut query: Query<&mut Text, With<TimeText>>, time: Res<Time>) {
let text = query.single_mut();
text.sections[1].value = format_time(time.elapsed());
}
```
After:
```rust
fn refresh_text(
query: Query<Entity, With<TimeText>>,
mut writer: UiTextWriter,
time: Res<Time>
) {
let entity = query.single();
*writer.text(entity, 1) = format_time(time.elapsed());
}
```
### Iterating text spans
Text spans are now entities in a hierarchy, so the new `UiTextReader`
and `UiTextWriter` system parameters provide ways to iterate that
hierarchy. The `UiTextReader::iter` method will give you a normal
iterator over spans, and `UiTextWriter::for_each` lets you visit each of
the spans.
---------
Co-authored-by: ickshonpe <david.curthoys@googlemail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
# Objective
- Rename `Pickable` to `PickingBehavior` to counter the easily-made
assumption that the component is required. It is optional
- Fix and clarify documentation
- The docs in `crates/bevy_ui/src/picking_backend.rs` were incorrect
about the necessity of `Pickable`
- Plus two minor code quality changes in this commit
(7c2e75f48d)
Closes#15632
# Objective
Yet another PR for migrating stuff to required components. This time,
cameras!
## Solution
As per the [selected
proposal](https://hackmd.io/tsYID4CGRiWxzsgawzxG_g#Combined-Proposal-1-Selected),
deprecate `Camera2dBundle` and `Camera3dBundle` in favor of `Camera2d`
and `Camera3d`.
Adding a `Camera` without `Camera2d` or `Camera3d` now logs a warning,
as suggested by Cart [on
Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1264881140007702558/1291506402832945273).
I would personally like cameras to work a bit differently and be split
into a few more components, to avoid some footguns and confusing
semantics, but that is more controversial, and shouldn't block this core
migration.
## Testing
I ran a few 2D and 3D examples, and tried cameras with and without
render graphs.
---
## Migration Guide
`Camera2dBundle` and `Camera3dBundle` have been deprecated in favor of
`Camera2d` and `Camera3d`. Inserting them will now also insert the other
components required by them automatically.
# Objective
Fixes#15401
## Solution
Changes the scroll inversion hotkey in the example from Shift to
Control.
Shift is idiomatic for this. Since we cannot use Shift per #15401, I
picked another modifier arbitrarily. A production app would handle this
in a platform specific way until the platform behaviors are unified
upstream, but no point here.
## Testing
I don't have a mac readily available for testing, if someone wouldn't
mind testing. I would also appreciate confirmation that trackpad is
working nicely.
# Objective
- Fixes#8074
- Adopts / Supersedes #8104
## Solution
Adapted from #8104 and affords the same benefits.
**Additions**
- [x] Update scrolling on relayout (height of node or contents may have
changed)
- [x] Make ScrollPosition component optional for ui nodes to avoid
checking every node on scroll
- [x] Nested scrollviews
**Omissions**
- Removed input handling for scrolling from `bevy_ui`. Users should
update `ScrollPosition` directly.
### Implementation
Adds a new `ScrollPosition` component. Updating this component on a
`Node` with an overflow axis set to `OverflowAxis::Scroll` will
reposition its children by that amount when calculating node transforms.
As before, no impact on the underlying Taffy layout.
Calculating this correctly is trickier than it was in #8104 due to
`"Update scrolling on relayout"`.
**Background**
When `ScrollPosition` is updated directly by the user, it can be
trivially handled in-engine by adding the parent's scroll position to
the final location of each child node. However, _other layout actions_
may result in a situation where `ScrollPosition` needs to be updated.
Consider a 1000 pixel tall vertically scrolling list of 100 elements,
each 100 pixels tall. Scrolled to the bottom, the
`ScrollPosition.offset_y` is 9000, just enough to display the last
element in the list. When removing an element from that list, the new
desired `ScrollPosition.offset_y` is 8900, but, critically, that is not
known until after the sizes and positions of the children of the
scrollable node are resolved.
All user scrolling code today handles this by delaying the resolution by
one frame. One notable disadvantage of this is the inability to support
`WinitSettings::desktop_app()`, since there would need to be an input
AFTER the layout change that caused the scroll position to update for
the results of the scroll position update to render visually.
I propose the alternative in this PR, which allows for same-frame
resolution of scrolling layout.
**Resolution**
_Edit: Below resolution is outdated, and replaced with the simpler usage
of taffy's `Layout::content_size`._
When recursively iterating the children of a node, each child now
returns a `Vec2` representing the location of their own bottom right
corner. Then, `[[0,0, [x,y]]` represents a bounding box containing the
scrollable area filled by that child. Scrollable parents aggregate those
areas into the bounding box of _all_ children, then consider that result
against `ScrollPosition` to ensure its validity.
In the event that resolution of the layout of the children invalidates
the `ScrollPosition` (e.g. scrolled further than there were children to
scroll to), _all_ children of that node must be recursively
repositioned. The position of each child must change as a result of the
change in scroll position.
Therefore, this implementation takes care to only spend the cost of the
"second layout pass" when a specific node actually had a
`ScrollPosition` forcibly updated by the layout of its children.
## Testing
Examples in `ui/scroll.rs`. There may be more complex node/style
interactions that were unconsidered.
---
## Showcase
## Alternatives
- `bevy_ui` doesn't support scrolling.
- `bevy_ui` implements scrolling with a one-frame delay on reactions to
layout changes.
