2a6445c193
10 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Joona Aalto
|
38c3423693
|
Event Split: Event, EntityEvent, and BufferedEvent (#19647)
# Objective Closes #19564. The current `Event` trait looks like this: ```rust pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static { type Traversal: Traversal<Self>; const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false; fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... } fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... } } ``` The `Event` trait is used by both buffered events (`EventReader`/`EventWriter`) and observer events. If they are observer events, they can optionally be targeted at specific `Entity`s or `ComponentId`s, and can even be propagated to other entities. However, there has long been a desire to split the trait semantically for a variety of reasons, see #14843, #14272, and #16031 for discussion. Some reasons include: - It's very uncommon to use a single event type as both a buffered event and targeted observer event. They are used differently and tend to have distinct semantics. - A common footgun is using buffered events with observers or event readers with observer events, as there is no type-level error that prevents this kind of misuse. - #19440 made `Trigger::target` return an `Option<Entity>`. This *seriously* hurts ergonomics for the general case of entity observers, as you need to `.unwrap()` each time. If we could statically determine whether the event is expected to have an entity target, this would be unnecessary. There's really two main ways that we can categorize events: push vs. pull (i.e. "observer event" vs. "buffered event") and global vs. targeted: | | Push | Pull | | ------------ | --------------- | --------------------------- | | **Global** | Global observer | `EventReader`/`EventWriter` | | **Targeted** | Entity observer | - | There are many ways to approach this, each with their tradeoffs. Ultimately, we kind of want to split events both ways: - A type-level distinction between observer events and buffered events, to prevent people from using the wrong kind of event in APIs - A statically designated entity target for observer events to avoid accidentally using untargeted events for targeted APIs This PR achieves these goals by splitting event traits into `Event`, `EntityEvent`, and `BufferedEvent`, with `Event` being the shared trait implemented by all events. ## `Event`, `EntityEvent`, and `BufferedEvent` `Event` is now a very simple trait shared by all events. ```rust pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static { // Required for observer APIs fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... } fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... } } ``` You can call `trigger` for *any* event, and use a global observer for listening to the event. ```rust #[derive(Event)] struct Speak { message: String, } // ... app.add_observer(|trigger: On<Speak>| { println!("{}", trigger.message); }); // ... commands.trigger(Speak { message: "Y'all like these reworked events?".to_string(), }); ``` To allow an event to be targeted at entities and even propagated further, you can additionally implement the `EntityEvent` trait: ```rust pub trait EntityEvent: Event { type Traversal: Traversal<Self>; const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false; } ``` This lets you call `trigger_targets`, and to use targeted observer APIs like `EntityCommands::observe`: ```rust #[derive(Event, EntityEvent)] #[entity_event(traversal = &'static ChildOf, auto_propagate)] struct Damage { amount: f32, } // ... let enemy = commands.spawn((Enemy, Health(100.0))).id(); // Spawn some armor as a child of the enemy entity. // When the armor takes damage, it will bubble the event up to the enemy. let armor_piece = commands .spawn((ArmorPiece, Health(25.0), ChildOf(enemy))) .observe(|trigger: On<Damage>, mut query: Query<&mut Health>| { // Note: `On::target` only exists because this is an `EntityEvent`. let mut health = query.get(trigger.target()).unwrap(); health.0 -= trigger.amount(); }); commands.trigger_targets(Damage { amount: 10.0 }, armor_piece); ``` > [!NOTE] > You *can* still also trigger an `EntityEvent` without targets using `trigger`. We probably *could* make this an either-or thing, but I'm not sure that's actually desirable. To allow an event to be used with the buffered API, you can implement `BufferedEvent`: ```rust pub trait BufferedEvent: Event {} ``` The event can then be used with `EventReader`/`EventWriter`: ```rust #[derive(Event, BufferedEvent)] struct Message(String); fn write_hello(mut writer: EventWriter<Message>) { writer.write(Message("I hope these examples are alright".to_string())); } fn read_messages(mut reader: EventReader<Message>) { // Process all buffered events of type `Message`. for Message(message) in reader.read() { println!("{message}"); } } ``` In summary: - Need a basic event you can trigger and observe? Derive `Event`! - Need the event to be targeted at an entity? Derive `EntityEvent`! - Need the event to be buffered and support the `EventReader`/`EventWriter` API? Derive `BufferedEvent`! ## Alternatives I'll now cover some of the alternative approaches I have considered and briefly explored. I made this section collapsible since it ended up being quite long :P <details> <summary>Expand this to see alternatives</summary> ### 1. Unified `Event` Trait One option is not to have *three* separate traits (`Event`, `EntityEvent`, `BufferedEvent`), and to instead just use associated constants on `Event` to determine whether an event supports targeting and buffering or not: ```rust pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static { type Traversal: Traversal<Self>; const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false; const TARGETED: bool = false; const BUFFERED: bool = false; fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... } fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... } } ``` Methods can then use bounds like `where E: Event<TARGETED = true>` or `where E: Event<BUFFERED = true>` to limit APIs to specific kinds of events. This would keep everything under one `Event` trait, but I don't think it's necessarily a good idea. It makes APIs harder to read, and docs can't easily refer to specific types of events. You can also create weird invariants: what if you specify `TARGETED = false`, but have `Traversal` and/or `AUTO_PROPAGATE` enabled? ### 2. `Event` and `Trigger` Another option is to only split the traits between buffered events and observer events, since that is the main thing people have been asking for, and they have the largest API difference. If we did this, I think we would need to make the terms *clearly* separate. We can't really use `Event` and `BufferedEvent` as the names, since it would be strange that `BufferedEvent` doesn't implement `Event`. Something like `ObserverEvent` and `BufferedEvent` could work, but it'd be more verbose. For this approach, I would instead keep `Event` for the current `EventReader`/`EventWriter` API, and call the observer event a `Trigger`, since the "trigger" terminology is already used in the observer context within Bevy (both as a noun and a verb). This is also what a long [bikeshed on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/749335865876021248/1298057661878898791) seemed to land on at the end of last year. ```rust // For `EventReader`/`EventWriter` pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static {} // For observers pub trait Trigger: Send + Sync + 'static { type Traversal: Traversal<Self>; const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false; const TARGETED: bool = false; fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... } fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... } } ``` The problem is that "event" is just a really good term for something that "happens". Observers are rapidly becoming the more prominent API, so it'd be weird to give them the `Trigger` name and leave the good `Event` name for the less common API. So, even though a split like this seems neat on the surface, I think it ultimately wouldn't really work. We want to keep the `Event` name for observer events, and there is no good alternative for the buffered variant. (`Message` was suggested, but saying stuff like "sends a collision message" is weird.) ### 3. `GlobalEvent` + `TargetedEvent` What if instead of focusing on the buffered vs. observed split, we *only* make a distinction between global and targeted events? ```rust // A shared event trait to allow global observers to work pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static { fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... } fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... } } // For buffered events and non-targeted observer events pub trait GlobalEvent: Event {} // For targeted observer events pub trait TargetedEvent: Event { type Traversal: Traversal<Self>; const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false; } ``` This is actually the first approach I implemented, and it has the neat characteristic that you can only use non-targeted APIs like `trigger` with a `GlobalEvent` and targeted APIs like `trigger_targets` with a `TargetedEvent`. You have full control over whether the entity should or should not have a target, as they are fully distinct at the type-level. However, there's a few problems: - There is no type-level indication of whether a `GlobalEvent` supports buffered events or just non-targeted observer events - An `Event` on its own does literally nothing, it's just a shared trait required to make global observers accept both non-targeted and targeted events - If an event is both a `GlobalEvent` and `TargetedEvent`, global observers again have ambiguity on whether an event has a target or not, undermining some of the benefits - The names are not ideal ### 4. `Event` and `EntityEvent` We can fix some of the problems of Alternative 3 by accepting that targeted events can also be used in non-targeted contexts, and simply having the `Event` and `EntityEvent` traits: ```rust // For buffered events and non-targeted observer events pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static { fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... } fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... } } // For targeted observer events pub trait EntityEvent: Event { type Traversal: Traversal<Self>; const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false; } ``` This is essentially identical to this PR, just without a dedicated `BufferedEvent`. The remaining major "problem" is that there is still zero type-level indication of whether an `Event` event *actually* supports the buffered API. This leads us to the solution proposed in this PR, using `Event`, `EntityEvent`, and `BufferedEvent`. </details> ## Conclusion The `Event` + `EntityEvent` + `BufferedEvent` split proposed in this PR aims to solve all the common problems with Bevy's current event model while keeping the "weirdness" factor minimal. It splits in terms of both the push vs. pull *and* global vs. targeted aspects, while maintaining a shared concept for an "event". ### Why I Like This - The term "event" remains as a single concept for all the different kinds of events in Bevy. - Despite all event types being "events", they use fundamentally different APIs. Instead of assuming that you can use an event type with any pattern (when only one is typically supported), you explicitly opt in to each one with dedicated traits. - Using separate traits for each type of event helps with documentation and clearer function signatures. - I can safely make assumptions on expected usage. - If I see that an event is an `EntityEvent`, I can assume that I can use `observe` on it and get targeted events. - If I see that an event is a `BufferedEvent`, I can assume that I can use `EventReader` to read events. - If I see both `EntityEvent` and `BufferedEvent`, I can assume that both APIs are supported. In summary: This allows for a unified concept for events, while limiting the different ways to use them with opt-in traits. No more guess-work involved when using APIs. ### Problems? - Because `BufferedEvent` implements `Event` (for more consistent semantics etc.), you can still use all buffered events for non-targeted observers. I think this is fine/good. The important part is that if you see that an event implements `BufferedEvent`, you know that the `EventReader`/`EventWriter` API should be supported. Whether it *also* supports other APIs is secondary. - I currently only support `trigger_targets` for an `EntityEvent`. However, you can technically target components too, without targeting any entities. I consider that such a niche and advanced use case that it's not a huge problem to only support it for `EntityEvent`s, but we could also split `trigger_targets` into `trigger_entities` and `trigger_components` if we wanted to (or implement components as entities :P). - You can still trigger an `EntityEvent` *without* targets. I consider this correct, since `Event` implements the non-targeted behavior, and it'd be weird if implementing another trait *removed* behavior. However, it does mean that global observers for entity events can technically return `Entity::PLACEHOLDER` again (since I got rid of the `Option<Entity>` added in #19440 for ergonomics). I think that's enough of an edge case that it's not a huge problem, but it is worth keeping in mind. - ~~Deriving both `EntityEvent` and `BufferedEvent` for the same type currently duplicates the `Event` implementation, so you instead need to manually implement one of them.~~ Changed to always requiring `Event` to be derived. ## Related Work There are plans to implement multi-event support for observers, especially for UI contexts. [Cart's example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14649#issuecomment-2960402508) API looked like this: ```rust // Truncated for brevity trigger: Trigger<( OnAdd<Pressed>, OnRemove<Pressed>, OnAdd<InteractionDisabled>, OnRemove<InteractionDisabled>, OnInsert<Hovered>, )>, ``` I believe this shouldn't be in conflict with this PR. If anything, this PR might *help* achieve the multi-event pattern for entity observers with fewer footguns: by statically enforcing that all of these events are `EntityEvent`s in the context of `EntityCommands::observe`, we can avoid misuse or weird cases where *some* events inside the trigger are targeted while others are not. |
||
|
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.
|
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
20813aed64
|
Handle TriggerTargets that are combinations for components/entities (#18024)
# Objective * Fixes https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14074 * Applies CI fixes for #16326 It is currently not possible to issues a trigger that targets a specific list of components AND a specific list of entities ## Solution We can now use `((A, B), (entity_1, entity_2))` as a trigger target, as well as the reverse ## Testing Added a unit test. The triggering rules for observers are quite confusing: Triggers once per entity target For each entity target, an observer system triggers if any of its components matches the trigger target components (but it triggers at most once, since we use an internal counter to make sure that an observer can run at most once per entity target) (copied from #14563) (copied from #16326) ## Notes All credit to @BenjaminBrienen and @cBournhonesque! Just applying a small fix to this PR so it can be merged. --------- Co-authored-by: Benjamin Brienen <Benjamin.Brienen@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: Christian Hughes <xdotdash@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
BD103
|
17ad855653
|
Migrate to core::hint::black_box() (#16980)
# Objective Many of our benchmarks use [`criterion::black_box()`](https://docs.rs/criterion/latest/criterion/fn.black_box.html), which is used to prevent the compiler from optimizing away computation that we're trying to time. This can be slow, though, because `criterion::black_box()` forces a point read each time it is called through [`ptr::road_volatile()`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/ptr/fn.read_volatile.html). In Rust 1.66, the standard library introduced [`core::hint::black_box()`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/std/hint/fn.black_box.html) (and `std::hint::black_box()`). This is an intended replacement for `criterion`'s version that uses compiler intrinsics instead of volatile pointer reads, and thus has no runtime overhead. This increases benchmark accuracy, which is always nice 👍 Note that benchmarks may _appear_ to improve in performance after this change, but that's just because we are eliminating the pointer read overhead. ## Solution - Deny `criterion::black_box` in `clippy.toml`. - Fix all imports. ## Testing - `cargo clippy -p benches --benches` |
||
|
BD103
|
6178ce93e8
|
Fix Clippy lints in benchmarks (#16808)
# Objective - Closes #16804. - This copies over our lint configuration to our benchmarks and fixes any lints. ## Solution - Copied over our Clippy configuration from the root `Cargo.toml` to `benches/Cargo.toml`. - Fixed any warnings that Clippy emitted. ## Testing - `cd benches && cargo clippy --benches` |
||
|
Christian Hughes
|
219b5930f1
|
Rename App/World::observe to add_observer, EntityWorldMut::observe_entity to observe. (#15754)
# Objective - Closes #15752 Calling the functions `App::observe` and `World::observe` doesn't make sense because you're not "observing" the `App` or `World`, you're adding an observer that listens for an event that occurs *within* the `World`. We should rename them to better fit this. ## Solution Renames: - `App::observe` -> `App::add_observer` - `World::observe` -> `World::add_observer` - `Commands::observe` -> `Commands::add_observer` - `EntityWorldMut::observe_entity` -> `EntityWorldMut::observe` (Note this isn't a breaking change as the original rename was introduced earlier this cycle.) ## Testing Reusing current tests. |
||
|
Kristoffer Søholm
|
336c23c1aa
|
Rename observe to observe_entity on EntityWorldMut (#15616)
# Objective The current observers have some unfortunate footguns where you can end up confused about what is actually being observed. For apps you can chain observe like `app.observe(..).observe(..)` which works like you would expect, but if you try the same with world the first `observe()` will return the `EntityWorldMut` for the created observer, and the second `observe()` will only observe on the observer entity. It took several hours for multiple people on discord to figure this out, which is not a great experience. ## Solution Rename `observe` on entities to `observe_entity`. It's slightly more verbose when you know you have an entity, but it feels right to me that observers for specific things have more specific naming, and it prevents this issue completely. Another possible solution would be to unify `observe` on `App` and `World` to have the same kind of return type, but I'm not sure exactly what that would look like. ## Testing Simple name change, so only concern is docs really. --- ## Migration Guide The `observe()` method on entities has been renamed to `observe_entity()` to prevent confusion about what is being observed in some cases. |
||
|
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> |
||
|
Benjamin Brienen
|
27bea6abf7
|
Bubbling observers traversal should use query data (#15385)
# Objective Fixes #14331 ## Solution - Make `Traversal` a subtrait of `ReadOnlyQueryData` - Update implementations and usages ## Testing - Updated unit tests ## Migration Guide Update implementations of `Traversal`. --------- Co-authored-by: Christian Hughes <9044780+ItsDoot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
re0312
|
e5bf59d712
|
Recalibrated observe benchmark (#14381)
# Objective - The event propagation benchmark is largely derived from bevy_eventlistener. However, it doesn't accurately reflect performance of bevy side, as our event bubble propagation is based on observer. ## Solution - added several new benchmarks that focuse on observer itself rather than event bubble |