1b7db895b7
4 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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> |
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
d70595b667
|
Add core and alloc over std Lints (#15281)
# Objective - Fixes #6370 - Closes #6581 ## Solution - Added the following lints to the workspace: - `std_instead_of_core` - `std_instead_of_alloc` - `alloc_instead_of_core` - Used `cargo +nightly fmt` with [item level use formatting](https://rust-lang.github.io/rustfmt/?version=v1.6.0&search=#Item%5C%3A) to split all `use` statements into single items. - Used `cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features --fix --allow-dirty` to _attempt_ to resolve the new linting issues, and intervened where the lint was unable to resolve the issue automatically (usually due to needing an `extern crate alloc;` statement in a crate root). - Manually removed certain uses of `std` where negative feature gating prevented `--all-features` from finding the offending uses. - Used `cargo +nightly fmt` with [crate level use formatting](https://rust-lang.github.io/rustfmt/?version=v1.6.0&search=#Crate%5C%3A) to re-merge all `use` statements matching Bevy's previous styling. - Manually fixed cases where the `fmt` tool could not re-merge `use` statements due to conditional compilation attributes. ## Testing - Ran CI locally ## Migration Guide The MSRV is now 1.81. Please update to this version or higher. ## Notes - This is a _massive_ change to try and push through, which is why I've outlined the semi-automatic steps I used to create this PR, in case this fails and someone else tries again in the future. - Making this change has no impact on user code, but does mean Bevy contributors will be warned to use `core` and `alloc` instead of `std` where possible. - This lint is a critical first step towards investigating `no_std` options for Bevy. --------- Co-authored-by: François Mockers <francois.mockers@vleue.com> |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
83356b12c9
|
bevy_reflect: Replace "value" terminology with "opaque" (#15240)
# Objective Currently, the term "value" in the context of reflection is a bit overloaded. For one, it can be used synonymously with "data" or "variable". An example sentence would be "this function takes a reflected value". However, it is also used to refer to reflected types which are `ReflectKind::Value`. These types are usually either primitives, opaque types, or types that don't fall into any other `ReflectKind` (or perhaps could, but don't due to some limitation/difficulty). An example sentence would be "this function takes a reflected value type". This makes it difficult to write good documentation or other learning material without causing some amount of confusion to readers. Ideally, we'd be able to move away from the `ReflectKind::Value` usage and come up with a better term. ## Solution This PR replaces the terminology of "value" with "opaque" across `bevy_reflect`. This includes in documentation, type names, variant names, and macros. The term "opaque" was chosen because that's essentially how the type is treated within the reflection API. In other words, its internal structure is hidden. All we can do is work with the type itself. ### Primitives While primitives are not technically opaque types, I think it's still clearer to refer to them as "opaque" rather than keep the confusing "value" terminology. We could consider adding another concept for primitives (e.g. `ReflectKind::Primitive`), but I'm not sure that provides a lot of benefit right now. In most circumstances, they'll be treated just like an opaque type. They would also likely use the same macro (or two copies of the same macro but with different names). ## Testing You can test locally by running: ``` cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features ``` --- ## Migration Guide The reflection concept of "value type" has been replaced with a clearer "opaque type". The following renames have been made to account for this: - `ReflectKind::Value` → `ReflectKind::Opaque` - `ReflectRef::Value` → `ReflectRef::Opaque` - `ReflectMut::Value` → `ReflectMut::Opaque` - `ReflectOwned::Value` → `ReflectOwned::Opaque` - `TypeInfo::Value` → `TypeInfo::Opaque` - `ValueInfo` → `OpaqueInfo` - `impl_reflect_value!` → `impl_reflect_opaque!` - `impl_from_reflect_value!` → `impl_from_reflect_opaque!` Additionally, declaring your own opaque types no longer uses `#[reflect_value]`. This attribute has been replaced by `#[reflect(opaque)]`: ```rust // BEFORE #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect_value(Default)] struct MyOpaqueType(u32); // AFTER #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect(opaque)] #[reflect(Default)] struct MyOpaqueType(u32); ``` Note that the order in which `#[reflect(opaque)]` appears does not matter. |
||
|
Patrick Walton
|
dfdf2b9ea4
|
Implement the AnimationGraph, allowing for multiple animations to be blended together. (#11989)
This is an implementation of RFC #51: https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/blob/main/rfcs/51-animation-composition.md Note that the implementation strategy is different from the one outlined in that RFC, because two-phase animation has now landed. # Objective Bevy needs animation blending. The RFC for this is [RFC 51]. ## Solution This is an implementation of the RFC. Note that the implementation strategy is different from the one outlined there, because two-phase animation has now landed. This is just a draft to get the conversation started. Currently we're missing a few things: - [x] A fully-fleshed-out mechanism for transitions - [x] A serialization format for `AnimationGraph`s - [x] Examples are broken, other than `animated_fox` - [x] Documentation --- ## Changelog ### Added * The `AnimationPlayer` has been reworked to support blending multiple animations together through an `AnimationGraph`, and as such will no longer function unless a `Handle<AnimationGraph>` has been added to the entity containing the player. See [RFC 51] for more details. * Transition functionality has moved from the `AnimationPlayer` to a new component, `AnimationTransitions`, which works in tandem with the `AnimationGraph`. ## Migration Guide * `AnimationPlayer`s can no longer play animations by themselves and need to be paired with a `Handle<AnimationGraph>`. Code that was using `AnimationPlayer` to play animations will need to create an `AnimationGraph` asset first, add a node for the clip (or clips) you want to play, and then supply the index of that node to the `AnimationPlayer`'s `play` method. * The `AnimationPlayer::play_with_transition()` method has been removed and replaced with the `AnimationTransitions` component. If you were previously using `AnimationPlayer::play_with_transition()`, add all animations that you were playing to the `AnimationGraph`, and create an `AnimationTransitions` component to manage the blending between them. [RFC 51]: https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/blob/main/rfcs/51-animation-composition.md --------- Co-authored-by: Rob Parrett <robparrett@gmail.com> |