0f446d49a1
9 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Brezak
|
0f446d49a1 |
Add more methods to RelationshipSourceCollection (#18421)
# Objective While working on #18058 I realized I could use `RelationshipTargetCollection::new`, so I added it. ## Solution - Add `RelationshipTargetCollection::new` - Add `RelationshipTargetCollection::reserve`. Could generally be useful when doing micro-optimizations. - Add `RelationshipTargetCollection::shrink_to_fit`. Rust collections generally don't shrink when removing elements. Might be a good idea to call this once in a while. ## Testing `cargo clippy` --- ## Showcase `RelationshipSourceCollection` now implements `new`, `reserve` and `shrink_to_fit` to give greater control over how much memory it consumes. ## Migration Guide Any type implementing `RelationshipSourceCollection` now needs to also implement `new`, `reserve` and `shrink_to_fit`. `reserve` and `shrink_to_fit` can be made no-ops if they conceptually mean nothing to a collection. --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Chris Russell <8494645+chescock@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Brezak
|
7cd729cf1a |
Add methods to bulk replace relationships on a entity (#18058)
# Objective Add a way to efficiently replace a set of specifically related entities with a new set. Closes #18041 ## Solution Add new `replace_(related/children)` to `EntityWorldMut` and friends. ## Testing Added a new test to `hierarchy.rs` that specifically check if `replace_children` actually correctly replaces the children on a entity while keeping the original one. --- ## Showcase `EntityWorldMut` and `EntityCommands` can now be used to efficiently replace the entities a entity is related to. ```rust /// `parent` has 2 children. `entity_a` and `entity_b`. assert_eq!([entity_a, entity_b], world.entity(parent).get::<Children>()); /// Replace `parent`s children with `entity_a` and `entity_c` world.entity_mut(parent).replace_related(&[entity_a, entity_c]); /// `parent` now has 2 children. `entity_a` and `entity_c`. /// /// `replace_children` has saved time by not removing and reading /// the relationship between `entity_a` and `parent` assert_eq!([entity_a, entity_c], world.entity(parent).get::<Children>()); --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
Brezak
|
906d788420
|
Expand the RelationshipSourceCollection to return more information (#18241)
# Objective While redoing #18058 I needed `RelationshipSourceCollection` (henceforth referred to as the **Trait**) to implement `clear` so I added it. ## Solution Add the `clear` method to the **Trait**. Also make `add` and `remove` report if they succeeded. ## Testing Eyeballs --- ## Showcase The `RelationshipSourceCollection` trait now reports if adding or removing an entity from it was successful. It also not contains the `clear` method so you can easily clear the collection in generic contexts. ## Changes EDITED by Alice: We should get this into 0.16, so no migration guide needed. The `RelationshipSourceCollection` methods `add` and `remove` now need to return a boolean indicating if they were successful (adding a entity to a set that already contains it counts as failure). Additionally the `clear` method has been added to support clearing the collection in generic contexts. |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
a530c07bc5
|
Preserve spawned RelationshipTarget order and other improvements (#17858)
Fixes #17720 ## Objective Spawning RelationshipTargets from scenes currently fails to preserve RelationshipTarget ordering (ex: `Children` has an arbitrary order). This is because it uses the normal hook flow to set up the collection, which means we are pushing onto the collection in _spawn order_ (which is currently in archetype order, which will often produce mismatched orderings). We need to preserve the ordering in the original RelationshipTarget collection. Ideally without expensive checking / fixups. ## Solution One solution would be to spawn in hierarchy-order. However this gets complicated as there can be multiple hierarchies, and it also means we can't spawn in more cache-friendly orders (ex: the current per-archetype spawning, or future even-smarter per-table spawning). Additionally, same-world cloning has _slightly_ more nuanced needs (ex: recursively clone linked relationships, while maintaining _original_ relationships outside of the tree via normal hooks). The preferred approach is to directly spawn the remapped RelationshipTarget collection, as this trivially preserves the ordering. Unfortunately we can't _just_ do that, as when we spawn the children with their Relationships (ex: `ChildOf`), that will insert a duplicate. We could "fixup" the collection retroactively by just removing the back half of duplicates, but this requires another pass / more lookups / allocating twice as much space. Additionally, it becomes complicated because observers could insert additional children, making it harder (aka more expensive) to determine which children are dupes and which are not. The path I chose is to support "opting out" of the relationship target hook in the contexts that need that, as this allows us to just cheaply clone the mapped collection. The relationship hook can look for this configuration when it runs and skip its logic when that happens. A "simple" / small-amount-of-code way to do this would be to add a "skip relationship spawn" flag to World. Sadly, any hook / observer that runs _as the result of an insert_ would also read this flag. We really need a way to scope this setting to a _specific_ insert. Therefore I opted to add a new `RelationshipInsertHookMode` enum and an `entity.insert_with_relationship_insert_hook_mode` variant. Obviously this is verbose and ugly. And nobody wants _more_ insert variants. But sadly this was the best I could come up with from a performance and capability perspective. If you have alternatives let me know! There are three variants: 1. `RelationshipInsertHookMode::Run`: always run relationship insert hooks (this is the default) 2. `RelationshipInsertHookMode::Skip`: do not run any relationship insert hooks for this insert (this is used by spawner code) 3. `RelationshipInsertHookMode::RunIfNotLinked`: only run hooks for _unlinked_ relationships (this is used in same-world recursive entity cloning to preserve relationships outside of the deep-cloned tree) Note that I have intentionally only added "insert with relationship hook mode" variants to the cases we absolutely need (everything else uses the default `Run` mode), just to keep the code size in check. I do not think we should add more without real _very necessary_ use cases. I also made some other minor tweaks: 1. I split out `SourceComponent` from `ComponentCloneCtx`. Reading the source component no longer needlessly blocks mutable access to `ComponentCloneCtx`. 2. Thanks to (1), I've removed the `RefCell` wrapper over the cloned component queue. 3. (1) also allowed me to write to the EntityMapper while queuing up clones, meaning we can reserve entities during the component clone and write them to the mapper _before_ inserting the component, meaning cloned collections can be mapped on insert. 4. I've removed the closure from `write_target_component_ptr` to simplify the API / make it compatible with the split `SourceComponent` approach. 5. I've renamed `EntityCloner::recursive` to `EntityCloner::linked_cloning` to connect that feature more directly with `RelationshipTarget::LINKED_SPAWN` 6. I've removed `EntityCloneBehavior::RelationshipTarget`. This was always intended to be temporary, and this new behavior removes the need for it. --------- Co-authored-by: Viktor Gustavsson <villor94@gmail.com> |
||
|
Dmytro Banin
|
7a1972ed3d
|
One-to-One Relationships (#18087)
# Objective Minimal implementation of directed one-to-one relationships via implementing `RelationshipSourceCollection` for `Entity`. Now you can do ```rust #[derive(Component)] #[relationship(relationship_target = Below)] pub struct Above(Entity); #[derive(Component)] #[relationship_target(relationship = Above)] pub struct Below(Entity); ``` ## Future Work It would be nice if the relationships could be fully symmetrical in the future - in the example above, since `Above` is the source of truth you can't add `Below` to an entity and have `Above` added automatically. ## Testing Wrote unit tests for new relationship sources and and verified adding/removing relationships maintains connection as expected. |
||
|
raldone01
|
1b7db895b7
|
Harden proc macro path resolution and add integration tests. (#17330)
This pr uses the `extern crate self as` trick to make proc macros behave the same way inside and outside bevy. # Objective - Removes noise introduced by `crate as` in the whole bevy repo. - Fixes #17004. - Hardens proc macro path resolution. ## TODO - [x] `BevyManifest` needs cleanup. - [x] Cleanup remaining `crate as`. - [x] Add proper integration tests to the ci. ## Notes - `cargo-manifest-proc-macros` is written by me and based/inspired by the old `BevyManifest` implementation and [`bkchr/proc-macro-crate`](https://github.com/bkchr/proc-macro-crate). - What do you think about the new integration test machinery I added to the `ci`? More and better integration tests can be added at a later stage. The goal of these integration tests is to simulate an actual separate crate that uses bevy. Ideally they would lightly touch all bevy crates. ## Testing - Needs RA test - Needs testing from other users - Others need to run at least `cargo run -p ci integration-test` and verify that they work. --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
3c8fae2390
|
Improved Entity Mapping and Cloning (#17687)
Fixes #17535 Bevy's approach to handling "entity mapping" during spawning and cloning needs some work. The addition of [Relations](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/17398) both [introduced a new "duplicate entities" bug when spawning scenes in the scene system](#17535) and made the weaknesses of the current mapping system exceedingly clear: 1. Entity mapping requires _a ton_ of boilerplate (implement or derive VisitEntities and VisitEntitesMut, then register / reflect MapEntities). Knowing the incantation is challenging and if you forget to do it in part or in whole, spawning subtly breaks. 2. Entity mapping a spawned component in scenes incurs unnecessary overhead: look up ReflectMapEntities, create a _brand new temporary instance_ of the component using FromReflect, map the entities in that instance, and then apply that on top of the actual component using reflection. We can do much better. Additionally, while our new [Entity cloning system](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/16132) is already pretty great, it has some areas we can make better: * It doesn't expose semantic info about the clone (ex: ignore or "clone empty"), meaning we can't key off of that in places where it would be useful, such as scene spawning. Rather than duplicating this info across contexts, I think it makes more sense to add that info to the clone system, especially given that we'd like to use cloning code in some of our spawning scenarios. * EntityCloner is currently built in a way that prioritizes a single entity clone * EntityCloner's recursive cloning is built to be done "inside out" in a parallel context (queue commands that each have a clone of EntityCloner). By making EntityCloner the orchestrator of the clone we can remove internal arcs, improve the clarity of the code, make EntityCloner mutable again, and simplify the builder code. * EntityCloner does not currently take into account entity mapping. This is necessary to do true "bullet proof" cloning, would allow us to unify the per-component scene spawning and cloning UX, and ultimately would allow us to use EntityCloner in place of raw reflection for scenes like `Scene(World)` (which would give us a nice performance boost: fewer archetype moves, less reflection overhead). ## Solution ### Improved Entity Mapping First, components now have first-class "entity visiting and mapping" behavior: ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect)] #[reflect(Component)] struct Inventory { size: usize, #[entities] items: Vec<Entity>, } ``` Any field with the `#[entities]` annotation will be viewable and mappable when cloning and spawning scenes. Compare that to what was required before! ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect, VisitEntities, VisitEntitiesMut)] #[reflect(Component, MapEntities)] struct Inventory { #[visit_entities(ignore)] size: usize, items: Vec<Entity>, } ``` Additionally, for relationships `#[entities]` is implied, meaning this "just works" in scenes and cloning: ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect)] #[relationship(relationship_target = Children)] #[reflect(Component)] struct ChildOf(pub Entity); ``` Note that Component _does not_ implement `VisitEntities` directly. Instead, it has `Component::visit_entities` and `Component::visit_entities_mut` methods. This is for a few reasons: 1. We cannot implement `VisitEntities for C: Component` because that would conflict with our impl of VisitEntities for anything that implements `IntoIterator<Item=Entity>`. Preserving that impl is more important from a UX perspective. 2. We should not implement `Component: VisitEntities` VisitEntities in the Component derive, as that would increase the burden of manual Component trait implementors. 3. Making VisitEntitiesMut directly callable for components would make it easy to invalidate invariants defined by a component author. By putting it in the `Component` impl, we can make it harder to call naturally / unavailable to autocomplete using `fn visit_entities_mut(this: &mut Self, ...)`. `ReflectComponent::apply_or_insert` is now `ReflectComponent::apply_or_insert_mapped`. By moving mapping inside this impl, we remove the need to go through the reflection system to do entity mapping, meaning we no longer need to create a clone of the target component, map the entities in that component, and patch those values on top. This will make spawning mapped entities _much_ faster (The default `Component::visit_entities_mut` impl is an inlined empty function, so it will incur no overhead for unmapped entities). ### The Bug Fix To solve #17535, spawning code now skips entities with the new `ComponentCloneBehavior::Ignore` and `ComponentCloneBehavior::RelationshipTarget` variants (note RelationshipTarget is a temporary "workaround" variant that allows scenes to skip these components. This is a temporary workaround that can be removed as these cases should _really_ be using EntityCloner logic, which should be done in a followup PR. When that is done, `ComponentCloneBehavior::RelationshipTarget` can be merged into the normal `ComponentCloneBehavior::Custom`). ### Improved Cloning * `Option<ComponentCloneHandler>` has been replaced by `ComponentCloneBehavior`, which encodes additional intent and context (ex: `Default`, `Ignore`, `Custom`, `RelationshipTarget` (this last one is temporary)). * Global per-world entity cloning configuration has been removed. This felt overly complicated, increased our API surface, and felt too generic. Each clone context can have different requirements (ex: what a user wants in a specific system, what a scene spawner wants, etc). I'd prefer to see how far context-specific EntityCloners get us first. * EntityCloner's internals have been reworked to remove Arcs and make it mutable. * EntityCloner is now directly stored on EntityClonerBuilder, simplifying the code somewhat * EntityCloner's "bundle scratch" pattern has been moved into the new BundleScratch type, improving its usability and making it usable in other contexts (such as future cross-world cloning code). Currently this is still private, but with some higher level safe APIs it could be used externally for making dynamic bundles * EntityCloner's recursive cloning behavior has been "externalized". It is now responsible for orchestrating recursive clones, meaning it no longer needs to be sharable/clone-able across threads / read-only. * EntityCloner now does entity mapping during clones, like scenes do. This gives behavior parity and also makes it more generically useful. * `RelatonshipTarget::RECURSIVE_SPAWN` is now `RelationshipTarget::LINKED_SPAWN`, and this field is used when cloning relationship targets to determine if cloning should happen recursively. The new `LINKED_SPAWN` term was picked to make it more generically applicable across spawning and cloning scenarios. ## Next Steps * I think we should adapt EntityCloner to support cross world cloning. I think this PR helps set the stage for that by making the internals slightly more generalized. We could have a CrossWorldEntityCloner that reuses a lot of this infrastructure. * Once we support cross world cloning, we should use EntityCloner to spawn `Scene(World)` scenes. This would yield significant performance benefits (no archetype moves, less reflection overhead). --------- Co-authored-by: eugineerd <70062110+eugineerd@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
Alice Cecile
|
5a9bc28502
|
Support non-Vec data structures in relations (#17447)
# Objective
The existing `RelationshipSourceCollection` uses `Vec` as the only
possible backing for our relationships. While a reasonable choice,
benchmarking use cases might reveal that a different data type is better
or faster.
For example:
- Not all relationships require a stable ordering between the
relationship sources (i.e. children). In cases where we a) have many
such relations and b) don't care about the ordering between them, a hash
set is likely a better datastructure than a `Vec`.
- The number of children-like entities may be small on average, and a
`smallvec` may be faster
## Solution
- Implement `RelationshipSourceCollection` for `EntityHashSet`, our
custom entity-optimized `HashSet`.
-~~Implement `DoubleEndedIterator` for `EntityHashSet` to make things
compile.~~
- This implementation was cursed and very surprising.
- Instead, by moving the iterator type on `RelationshipSourceCollection`
from an erased RPTIT to an explicit associated type we can add a trait
bound on the offending methods!
- Implement `RelationshipSourceCollection` for `SmallVec`
## Testing
I've added a pair of new tests to make sure this pattern compiles
successfully in practice!
## Migration Guide
`EntityHashSet` and `EntityHashMap` are no longer re-exported in
`bevy_ecs::entity` directly. If you were not using `bevy_ecs` / `bevy`'s
`prelude`, you can access them through their now-public modules,
`hash_set` and `hash_map` instead.
## Notes to reviewers
The `EntityHashSet::Iter` type needs to be public for this impl to be
allowed. I initially renamed it to something that wasn't ambiguous and
re-exported it, but as @Victoronz pointed out, that was somewhat
unidiomatic.
In
|
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
21f1e3045c
|
Relationships (non-fragmenting, one-to-many) (#17398)
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 #17301 Fixes #12235 Fixes #15299 Fixes #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> |