Bump version after release
This PR has been auto-generated
Fixes#19766
---------
Co-authored-by: Bevy Auto Releaser <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: François Mockers <francois.mockers@vleue.com>
Co-authored-by: François Mockers <mockersf@gmail.com>
# Objective
- Currently there is predefinied list of supported DataTypes that can be
detected on Bevy JSON Schema generation and mapped as reflect_types
array elements.
- Make it possible to register custom `reflectTypes` mappings for Bevy
JSON Schema.
## Solution
- Create a `SchemaTypesMetadata` Resource that will hold mappings for
`TypeId` of `TypeData`. List is bigger from beggining and it is possible
to expand it without forking package.
## Testing
- I use it for quite a while in my game, I have a fork of bevy_remote
with more changes that later I want to merge to main as well.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
- Many strings in bevy_ecs are created but only used for debug: system
name, component name, ...
- Those strings make a significant part of the final binary and are no
use in a released game
## Solution
- Use [`strings`](https://linux.die.net/man/1/strings) to find ...
strings in a binary
- Try to find where they come from
- Many are made from `type_name::<T>()` and only used in error / debug
messages
- Add a new structure `DebugName` that holds no value if `debug` feature
is disabled
- Replace `core::any::type_name::<T>()` by `DebugName::type_name::<T>()`
## Testing
Measurements were taken without the new feature being enabled by
default, to help with commands
### File Size
I tried building the `breakout` example with `cargo run --release
--example breakout`
|`debug` enabled|`debug` disabled|
|-|-|
|81621776 B|77735728B|
|77.84MB|74.13MB|
### Compilation time
`hyperfine --min-runs 15 --prepare "cargo clean && sleep 5"
'RUSTC_WRAPPER="" cargo build --release --example breakout'
'RUSTC_WRAPPER="" cargo build --release --example breakout --features
debug'`
```
breakout' 'RUSTC_WRAPPER="" cargo build --release --example breakout --features debug'
Benchmark 1: RUSTC_WRAPPER="" cargo build --release --example breakout
Time (mean ± σ): 84.856 s ± 3.565 s [User: 1093.817 s, System: 32.547 s]
Range (min … max): 78.038 s … 89.214 s 15 runs
Benchmark 2: RUSTC_WRAPPER="" cargo build --release --example breakout --features debug
Time (mean ± σ): 92.303 s ± 2.466 s [User: 1193.443 s, System: 33.803 s]
Range (min … max): 90.619 s … 99.684 s 15 runs
Summary
RUSTC_WRAPPER="" cargo build --release --example breakout ran
1.09 ± 0.05 times faster than RUSTC_WRAPPER="" cargo build --release --example breakout --features debug
```
# Objective
I set out with one simple goal: clearly document the differences between
each of the component lifecycle events via module docs.
Unfortunately, no such module existed: the various lifecycle code was
scattered to the wind.
Without a unified module, it's very hard to discover the related types,
and there's nowhere good to put my shiny new documentation.
## Solution
1. Unify the assorted types into a single
`bevy_ecs::component_lifecycle` module.
2. Write docs.
3. Write a migration guide.
## Testing
Thanks CI!
## Follow-up
1. The lifecycle event names are pretty confusing, especially
`OnReplace`. We should consider renaming those. No bikeshedding in my PR
though!
2. Observers need real module docs too :(
3. Any additional functional changes should be done elsewhere; this is a
simple docs and re-org PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: theotherphil <phil.j.ellison@gmail.com>
# Objective
- #19504 showed a 11x regression in getting component values for
unregistered components. This pr should fix that and improve others a
little too.
- This is some cleanup work from #18173 .
## Solution
- Whenever we expect a component value to exist, we only care about
fully registered components, not queued to be registered components
since, for the value to exist, it must be registered.
- So we can use the faster `get_valid_*` instead of `get_*` in a lot of
places.
- Also found a bug where `valid_*` did not forward to `get_valid_*`
properly. That's fixed.
## Testing
CI
# Objective
cargo update was required to build because into_values was added in a
patch version
## Solution
Depend on the new patch
## Testing
Builds locally now
# Objective
- Fixes#18869.
## Solution
The issue was the `?` after a `Result` raising the error, instead of
treating it.
Instead it is handled with `ok`, `and_then`, `map` ...
_Edit: I added the following logic._
On `bevy/query` remote requests, when `strict` is false:
- Unregistered components in `option` and `without` are ignored.
- Unregistered components in `has` are considered absent from the
entity.
- Unregistered components in `components` and `with` result in an empty
response since they specify hard requirements.
I made the `get_component_ids` function return a
`AnyhowResult<(Vec<(TypeId, ComponentId)>, Vec<String>)>` instead of the
previous `AnyhowResult<Vec<(TypeId, ComponentId)>>`; that is I added the
list of unregistered components.
## Testing
I tested changes using the same procedure as in the linked issue:
```sh
cargo run --example server --features="bevy_remote"
```
In another terminal:
```sh
# Not strict:
$ curl -X POST http://localhost:15702 -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "method": "bevy/query", "id": 0, "params": { "data": { "components": [ "foo::bar::MyComponent" ] } } }'
{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":0,"result":[]}
# Strict:
$ curl -X POST http://localhost:15702 -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "method": "bevy/query", "id": 0, "params": { "data": { "components": [ "foo::bar::MyComponent" ] }, "strict": true } }'
{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":0,"error":{"code":-23402,"message":"Component `foo::bar::MyComponent` isn't registered or used in the world"}}
```
# Objective
There are two problems this aims to solve.
First, `Entity::index` is currently a `u32`. That means there are
`u32::MAX + 1` possible entities. Not only is that awkward, but it also
make `Entity` allocation more difficult. I discovered this while working
on remote entity reservation, but even on main, `Entities` doesn't
handle the `u32::MAX + 1` entity very well. It can not be batch reserved
because that iterator uses exclusive ranges, which has a maximum upper
bound of `u32::MAX - 1`. In other words, having `u32::MAX` as a valid
index can be thought of as a bug right now. We either need to make that
invalid (this PR), which makes Entity allocation cleaner and makes
remote reservation easier (because the length only needs to be u32
instead of u64, which, in atomics is a big deal), or we need to take
another pass at `Entities` to make it handle the `u32::MAX` index
properly.
Second, `TableRow`, `ArchetypeRow` and `EntityIndex` (a type alias for
u32) all have `u32` as the underlying type. That means using these as
the index type in a `SparseSet` uses 64 bits for the sparse list because
it stores `Option<IndexType>`. By using `NonMaxU32` here, we cut the
memory of that list in half. To my knowledge, `EntityIndex` is the only
thing that would really benefit from this niche. `TableRow` and
`ArchetypeRow` I think are not stored in an `Option` in bulk. But if
they ever are, this would help. Additionally this ensures
`TableRow::INVALID` and `ArchetypeRow::INVALID` never conflict with an
actual row, which in a nice bonus.
As a related note, if we do components as entities where `ComponentId`
becomes `Entity`, the the `SparseSet<ComponentId>` will see a similar
memory improvement too.
## Solution
Create a new type `EntityRow` that wraps `NonMaxU32`, similar to
`TableRow` and `ArchetypeRow`.
Change `Entity::index` to this type.
## Downsides
`NonMax` is implemented as a `NonZero` with a binary inversion. That
means accessing and storing the value takes one more instruction. I
don't think that's a big deal, but it's worth mentioning.
As a consequence, `to_bits` uses `transmute` to skip the inversion which
keeps it a nop. But that also means that ordering has now flipped. In
other words, higher indices are considered less than lower indices. I
don't think that's a problem, but it's also worth mentioning.
## Alternatives
We could keep the index as a u32 type and just document that `u32::MAX`
is invalid, modifying `Entities` to ensure it never gets handed out.
(But that's not enforced by the type system.) We could still take
advantage of the niche here in `ComponentSparseSet`. We'd just need some
unsafe manual conversions, which is probably fine, but opens up the
possibility for correctness problems later.
We could change `Entities` to fully support the `u32::MAX` index. (But
that makes `Entities` more complex and potentially slightly slower.)
## Testing
- CI
- A few tests were changed because they depend on different ordering and
`to_bits` values.
## Future Work
- It might be worth removing the niche on `Entity::generation` since
there is now a different niche.
- We could move `Entity::generation` into it's own type too for clarity.
- We should change `ComponentSparseSet` to take advantage of the new
niche. (This PR doesn't change that yet.)
- Consider removing or updating `Identifier`. This is only used for
`Entity`, so it might be worth combining since `Entity` is now more
unique.
---------
Co-authored-by: atlv <email@atlasdostal.com>
Co-authored-by: Zachary Harrold <zac@harrold.com.au>
# Objective
Fixes a part of #14274.
Bevy has an incredibly inconsistent naming convention for its system
sets, both internally and across the ecosystem.
<img alt="System sets in Bevy"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d16e2027-793f-4ba4-9cc9-e780b14a5a1b"
width="450" />
*Names of public system set types in Bevy*
Most Bevy types use a naming of `FooSystem` or just `Foo`, but there are
also a few `FooSystems` and `FooSet` types. In ecosystem crates on the
other hand, `FooSet` is perhaps the most commonly used name in general.
Conventions being so wildly inconsistent can make it harder for users to
pick names for their own types, to search for system sets on docs.rs, or
to even discern which types *are* system sets.
To reign in the inconsistency a bit and help unify the ecosystem, it
would be good to establish a common recommended naming convention for
system sets in Bevy itself, similar to how plugins are commonly suffixed
with `Plugin` (ex: `TimePlugin`). By adopting a consistent naming
convention in first-party Bevy, we can softly nudge ecosystem crates to
follow suit (for types where it makes sense to do so).
Choosing a naming convention is also relevant now, as the [`bevy_cli`
recently adopted
lints](https://github.com/TheBevyFlock/bevy_cli/pull/345) to enforce
naming for plugins and system sets, and the recommended naming used for
system sets is still a bit open.
## Which Name To Use?
Now the contentious part: what naming convention should we actually
adopt?
This was discussed on the Bevy Discord at the end of last year, starting
[here](<https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1310659954683936789>).
`FooSet` and `FooSystems` were the clear favorites, with `FooSet` very
narrowly winning an unofficial poll. However, it seems to me like the
consensus was broadly moving towards `FooSystems` at the end and after
the poll, with Cart
([source](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1311140204974706708))
and later Alice
([source](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1311092530732859533))
and also me being in favor of it.
Let's do a quick pros and cons list! Of course these are just what I
thought of, so take it with a grain of salt.
`FooSet`:
- Pro: Nice and short!
- Pro: Used by many ecosystem crates.
- Pro: The `Set` suffix comes directly from the trait name `SystemSet`.
- Pro: Pairs nicely with existing APIs like `in_set` and
`configure_sets`.
- Con: `Set` by itself doesn't actually indicate that it's related to
systems *at all*, apart from the implemented trait. A set of what?
- Con: Is `FooSet` a set of `Foo`s or a system set related to `Foo`? Ex:
`ContactSet`, `MeshSet`, `EnemySet`...
`FooSystems`:
- Pro: Very clearly indicates that the type represents a collection of
systems. The actual core concept, system(s), is in the name.
- Pro: Parallels nicely with `FooPlugins` for plugin groups.
- Pro: Low risk of conflicts with other names or misunderstandings about
what the type is.
- Pro: In most cases, reads *very* nicely and clearly. Ex:
`PhysicsSystems` and `AnimationSystems` as opposed to `PhysicsSet` and
`AnimationSet`.
- Pro: Easy to search for on docs.rs.
- Con: Usually results in longer names.
- Con: Not yet as widely used.
Really the big problem with `FooSet` is that it doesn't actually
describe what it is. It describes what *kind of thing* it is (a set of
something), but not *what it is a set of*, unless you know the type or
check its docs or implemented traits. `FooSystems` on the other hand is
much more self-descriptive in this regard, at the cost of being a bit
longer to type.
Ultimately, in some ways it comes down to preference and how you think
of system sets. Personally, I was originally in favor of `FooSet`, but
have been increasingly on the side of `FooSystems`, especially after
seeing what the new names would actually look like in Avian and now
Bevy. I prefer it because it usually reads better, is much more clearly
related to groups of systems than `FooSet`, and overall *feels* more
correct and natural to me in the long term.
For these reasons, and because Alice and Cart also seemed to share a
preference for it when it was previously being discussed, I propose that
we adopt a `FooSystems` naming convention where applicable.
## Solution
Rename Bevy's system set types to use a consistent `FooSet` naming where
applicable.
- `AccessibilitySystem` → `AccessibilitySystems`
- `GizmoRenderSystem` → `GizmoRenderSystems`
- `PickSet` → `PickingSystems`
- `RunFixedMainLoopSystem` → `RunFixedMainLoopSystems`
- `TransformSystem` → `TransformSystems`
- `RemoteSet` → `RemoteSystems`
- `RenderSet` → `RenderSystems`
- `SpriteSystem` → `SpriteSystems`
- `StateTransitionSteps` → `StateTransitionSystems`
- `RenderUiSystem` → `RenderUiSystems`
- `UiSystem` → `UiSystems`
- `Animation` → `AnimationSystems`
- `AssetEvents` → `AssetEventSystems`
- `TrackAssets` → `AssetTrackingSystems`
- `UpdateGizmoMeshes` → `GizmoMeshSystems`
- `InputSystem` → `InputSystems`
- `InputFocusSet` → `InputFocusSystems`
- `ExtractMaterialsSet` → `MaterialExtractionSystems`
- `ExtractMeshesSet` → `MeshExtractionSystems`
- `RumbleSystem` → `RumbleSystems`
- `CameraUpdateSystem` → `CameraUpdateSystems`
- `ExtractAssetsSet` → `AssetExtractionSystems`
- `Update2dText` → `Text2dUpdateSystems`
- `TimeSystem` → `TimeSystems`
- `AudioPlaySet` → `AudioPlaybackSystems`
- `SendEvents` → `EventSenderSystems`
- `EventUpdates` → `EventUpdateSystems`
A lot of the names got slightly longer, but they are also a lot more
consistent, and in my opinion the majority of them read much better. For
a few of the names I took the liberty of rewording things a bit;
definitely open to any further naming improvements.
There are still also cases where the `FooSystems` naming doesn't really
make sense, and those I left alone. This primarily includes system sets
like `Interned<dyn SystemSet>`, `EnterSchedules<S>`, `ExitSchedules<S>`,
or `TransitionSchedules<S>`, where the type has some special purpose and
semantics.
## Todo
- [x] Should I keep all the old names as deprecated type aliases? I can
do this, but to avoid wasting work I'd prefer to first reach consensus
on whether these renames are even desired.
- [x] Migration guide
- [x] Release notes
# Objective
The goal of `bevy_platform_support` is to provide a set of platform
agnostic APIs, alongside platform-specific functionality. This is a high
traffic crate (providing things like HashMap and Instant). Especially in
light of https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/18799, it
deserves a friendlier / shorter name.
Given that it hasn't had a full release yet, getting this change in
before Bevy 0.16 makes sense.
## Solution
- Rename `bevy_platform_support` to `bevy_platform`.
# Objective
In `bevy_enhanced_input`, I'm trying to associate `Actions` with a
schedule. I can do this via an associated type on a trait, but there's
no way to construct the associated label except by requiring a `Default`
implementation. However, Bevy labels don't implement `Default`.
## Solution
Add `Default` to all built-in labels. I think it should be useful in
general.
# Objective
- Some crates don't compile or have clippy warnings when building for
wasm32
## Solution
- bevy_asset: unused lifetime
- bevy_gltf: the error is not too large in wasm32
- bevy_remote: fails to compile as feature http is also gated on wasm32
- bevy_winit: unused import `error`
# Objective
Noticed that `bevy_remote` fails to compile without default features.
## Solution
Adjusted offending method to avoid reliance on `http` module when it is
disabled.
## Testing
- CI
- `cargo clippy -p bevy_remote --no-default-features`
# Objective
FilteredResource::get should return a Result instead of Option
Fixes#17480
---
## Migration Guide
Users will need to handle the different return type on
FilteredResource::get, FilteredResource::get_id,
FilteredResource::get_mut as it is now a Result not an Option.
# Objective
Prevents duplicate implementation between IntoSystemConfigs and
IntoSystemSetConfigs using a generic, adds a NodeType trait for more
config flexibility (opening the door to implement
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14195?).
## Solution
Followed writeup by @ItsDoot:
https://hackmd.io/@doot/rJeefFHc1x
Removes IntoSystemConfigs and IntoSystemSetConfigs, instead using
IntoNodeConfigs with generics.
## Testing
Pending
---
## Showcase
N/A
## Migration Guide
SystemSetConfigs -> NodeConfigs<InternedSystemSet>
SystemConfigs -> NodeConfigs<ScheduleSystem>
IntoSystemSetConfigs -> IntoNodeConfigs<InternedSystemSet, M>
IntoSystemConfigs -> IntoNodeConfigs<ScheduleSystem, M>
---------
Co-authored-by: Christian Hughes <9044780+ItsDoot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
- Prevent usage of `println!`, `eprintln!` and the like because they
require `std`
- Fixes#17446
## Solution
- Enable the `print_stdout` and `print_stderr` clippy lints
- Replace all `println!` and `eprintln!` occurrences with `log::*` where
applicable or alternatively ignore the warnings
## Testing
- Run `cargo clippy --workspace` to ensure that there are no warnings
relating to printing to `stdout` or `stderr`
