29cfad63a1
8 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Joona Aalto
|
e5dc177b4b
|
Rename Trigger to On (#19596)
# Objective
Currently, the observer API looks like this:
```rust
app.add_observer(|trigger: Trigger<Explode>| {
info!("Entity {} exploded!", trigger.target());
});
```
Future plans for observers also include "multi-event observers" with a
trigger that looks like this (see [Cart's
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14649#issuecomment-2960402508)):
```rust
trigger: Trigger<(
OnAdd<Pressed>,
OnRemove<Pressed>,
OnAdd<InteractionDisabled>,
OnRemove<InteractionDisabled>,
OnInsert<Hovered>,
)>,
```
In scenarios like this, there is a lot of repetition of `On`. These are
expected to be very high-traffic APIs especially in UI contexts, so
ergonomics and readability are critical.
By renaming `Trigger` to `On`, we can make these APIs read more cleanly
and get rid of the repetition:
```rust
app.add_observer(|trigger: On<Explode>| {
info!("Entity {} exploded!", trigger.target());
});
```
```rust
trigger: On<(
Add<Pressed>,
Remove<Pressed>,
Add<InteractionDisabled>,
Remove<InteractionDisabled>,
Insert<Hovered>,
)>,
```
Names like `On<Add<Pressed>>` emphasize the actual event listener nature
more than `Trigger<OnAdd<Pressed>>`, and look cleaner. This *also* frees
up the `Trigger` name if we want to use it for the observer event type,
splitting them out from buffered events (bikeshedding this is out of
scope for this PR though).
For prior art:
[`bevy_eventlistener`](https://github.com/aevyrie/bevy_eventlistener)
used
[`On`](https://docs.rs/bevy_eventlistener/latest/bevy_eventlistener/event_listener/struct.On.html)
for its event listener type. Though in our case, the observer is the
event listener, and `On` is just a type containing information about the
triggered event.
## Solution
Steal from `bevy_event_listener` by @aevyrie and use `On`.
- Rename `Trigger` to `On`
- Rename `OnAdd` to `Add`
- Rename `OnInsert` to `Insert`
- Rename `OnReplace` to `Replace`
- Rename `OnRemove` to `Remove`
- Rename `OnDespawn` to `Despawn`
## Discussion
### Naming Conflicts??
Using a name like `Add` might initially feel like a very bad idea, since
it risks conflict with `core::ops::Add`. However, I don't expect this to
be a big problem in practice.
- You rarely need to actually implement the `Add` trait, especially in
modules that would use the Bevy ECS.
- In the rare cases where you *do* get a conflict, it is very easy to
fix by just disambiguating, for example using `ops::Add`.
- The `Add` event is a struct while the `Add` trait is a trait (duh), so
the compiler error should be very obvious.
For the record, renaming `OnAdd` to `Add`, I got exactly *zero* errors
or conflicts within Bevy itself. But this is of course not entirely
representative of actual projects *using* Bevy.
You might then wonder, why not use `Added`? This would conflict with the
`Added` query filter, so it wouldn't work. Additionally, the current
naming convention for observer events does not use past tense.
### Documentation
This does make documentation slightly more awkward when referring to
`On` or its methods. Previous docs often referred to `Trigger::target`
or "sends a `Trigger`" (which is... a bit strange anyway), which would
now be `On::target` and "sends an observer `Event`".
You can see the diff in this PR to see some of the effects. I think it
should be fine though, we may just need to reword more documentation to
read better.
|
||
|
Eagster
|
064e5e48b4
|
Remove entity placeholder from observers (#19440)
# Objective `Entity::PLACEHOLDER` acts as a magic number that will *probably* never really exist, but it certainly could. And, `Entity` has a niche, so the only reason to use `PLACEHOLDER` is as an alternative to `MaybeUninit` that trades safety risks for logic risks. As a result, bevy has generally advised against using `PLACEHOLDER`, but we still use if for a lot internally. This pr starts removing internal uses of it, starting from observers. ## Solution Change all trigger target related types from `Entity` to `Option<Entity>` Small migration guide to come. ## Testing CI ## Future Work This turned a lot of code from ```rust trigger.target() ``` to ```rust trigger.target().unwrap() ``` The extra panic is no worse than before; it's just earlier than panicking after passing the placeholder to something else. But this is kinda annoying. I would like to add a `TriggerMode` or something to `Event` that would restrict what kinds of targets can be used for that event. Many events like `Removed` etc, are always triggered with a target. We can make those have a way to assume Some, etc. But I wanted to save that for a future pr. |
||
|
ickshonpe
|
f04c0ef689
|
tab_navigation example improvements (#19239)
# Objective Improve the `tab_navigation` example. ## Solution * Set different `TabIndex`s for the buttons of each group. * Label each button with its associated `TabIndex`. * Reduce the code duplication using a loop. I tried to flatten it further using the new spawning APIs and `children!` macro but not sure what the current best way to attach the observers is. |
||
|
robtfm
|
b641aa0ecf
|
separate border colors (#18682)
# Objective allow specifying the left/top/right/bottom border colors separately for ui elements fixes #14773 ## Solution - change `BorderColor` to ```rs pub struct BorderColor { pub left: Color, pub top: Color, pub right: Color, pub bottom: Color, } ``` - generate one ui node per distinct border color, set flags for the active borders - render only the active borders i chose to do this rather than adding multiple colors to the ExtractedUiNode in order to minimize the impact for the common case where all border colors are the same. ## Testing modified the `borders` example to use separate colors:  the behaviour is a bit weird but it mirrors html/css border behaviour. --- ## Migration: To keep the existing behaviour, just change `BorderColor(color)` into `BorderColor::all(color)`. --------- Co-authored-by: ickshonpe <david.curthoys@googlemail.com> |
||
|
Alice Cecile
|
5ab0456f61
|
Unified picking cleanup (#18401)
# 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. |
||
|
Antony
|
65e289f5bc
|
Unify picking backends (#17348)
# 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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
Talin
|
5c67cfc8b7
|
Tab navigation framework for bevy_input_focus. (#16795)
# Objective This PR continues the work of `bevy_input_focus` by adding a pluggable tab navigation framework. As part of this work, `FocusKeyboardEvent` now propagates to the window after exhausting all ancestors. ## Testing Unit tests and manual tests. --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |