383b351045
17 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
François Mockers
|
383b351045 | chore: Release | ||
|
Benjamin Brienen
|
6fc2e919b8 |
Make sure that serde_json::Map::into_values exists (#19229)
# 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 |
||
|
François Mockers
|
e9418b3845 | Release 0.16.0 | ||
|
François Mockers
|
608f902d1a | Release 0.16.0-rc.5 | ||
|
Carter Anderson
|
9666a7e688 |
Rename bevy_platform_support to bevy_platform (#18813)
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. - Rename `bevy_platform_support` to `bevy_platform`. |
||
|
François Mockers
|
c4b3d75b46 | Release 0.16.0-rc.4 | ||
|
François Mockers
|
bdfd7a3443 | Release 0.16.0-rc.3 | ||
|
François Mockers
|
1f44b56310 | Release 0.16.0-rc.2 | ||
|
François Mockers
|
920515adab | Release 0.16.0-rc.1 | ||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
5241e09671
|
Upgrade to Rust Edition 2024 (#17967)
# Objective - Fixes #17960 ## Solution - Followed the [edition upgrade guide](https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/editions/transitioning-an-existing-project-to-a-new-edition.html) ## Testing - CI --- ## Summary of Changes ### Documentation Indentation When using lists in documentation, proper indentation is now linted for. This means subsequent lines within the same list item must start at the same indentation level as the item. ```rust /* Valid */ /// - Item 1 /// Run-on sentence. /// - Item 2 struct Foo; /* Invalid */ /// - Item 1 /// Run-on sentence. /// - Item 2 struct Foo; ``` ### Implicit `!` to `()` Conversion `!` (the never return type, returned by `panic!`, etc.) no longer implicitly converts to `()`. This is particularly painful for systems with `todo!` or `panic!` statements, as they will no longer be functions returning `()` (or `Result<()>`), making them invalid systems for functions like `add_systems`. The ideal fix would be to accept functions returning `!` (or rather, _not_ returning), but this is blocked on the [stabilisation of the `!` type itself](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.never.html), which is not done. The "simple" fix would be to add an explicit `-> ()` to system signatures (e.g., `|| { todo!() }` becomes `|| -> () { todo!() }`). However, this is _also_ banned, as there is an existing lint which (IMO, incorrectly) marks this as an unnecessary annotation. So, the "fix" (read: workaround) is to put these kinds of `|| -> ! { ... }` closuers into variables and give the variable an explicit type (e.g., `fn()`). ```rust // Valid let system: fn() = || todo!("Not implemented yet!"); app.add_systems(..., system); // Invalid app.add_systems(..., || todo!("Not implemented yet!")); ``` ### Temporary Variable Lifetimes The order in which temporary variables are dropped has changed. The simple fix here is _usually_ to just assign temporaries to a named variable before use. ### `gen` is a keyword We can no longer use the name `gen` as it is reserved for a future generator syntax. This involved replacing uses of the name `gen` with `r#gen` (the raw-identifier syntax). ### Formatting has changed Use statements have had the order of imports changed, causing a substantial +/-3,000 diff when applied. For now, I have opted-out of this change by amending `rustfmt.toml` ```toml style_edition = "2021" ``` This preserves the original formatting for now, reducing the size of this PR. It would be a simple followup to update this to 2024 and run `cargo fmt`. ### New `use<>` Opt-Out Syntax Lifetimes are now implicitly included in RPIT types. There was a handful of instances where it needed to be added to satisfy the borrow checker, but there may be more cases where it _should_ be added to avoid breakages in user code. ### `MyUnitStruct { .. }` is an invalid pattern Previously, you could match against unit structs (and unit enum variants) with a `{ .. }` destructuring. This is no longer valid. ### Pretty much every use of `ref` and `mut` are gone Pattern binding has changed to the point where these terms are largely unused now. They still serve a purpose, but it is far more niche now. ### `iter::repeat(...).take(...)` is bad New lint recommends using the more explicit `iter::repeat_n(..., ...)` instead. ## Migration Guide The lifetimes of functions using return-position impl-trait (RPIT) are likely _more_ conservative than they had been previously. If you encounter lifetime issues with such a function, please create an issue to investigate the addition of `+ use<...>`. ## Notes - Check the individual commits for a clearer breakdown for what _actually_ changed. --------- Co-authored-by: François Mockers <francois.mockers@vleue.com> |
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
9bc0ae33c3
|
Move hashbrown and foldhash out of bevy_utils (#17460)
# Objective - Contributes to #16877 ## Solution - Moved `hashbrown`, `foldhash`, and related types out of `bevy_utils` and into `bevy_platform_support` - Refactored the above to match the layout of these types in `std`. - Updated crates as required. ## Testing - CI --- ## Migration Guide - The following items were moved out of `bevy_utils` and into `bevy_platform_support::hash`: - `FixedState` - `DefaultHasher` - `RandomState` - `FixedHasher` - `Hashed` - `PassHash` - `PassHasher` - `NoOpHash` - The following items were moved out of `bevy_utils` and into `bevy_platform_support::collections`: - `HashMap` - `HashSet` - `bevy_utils::hashbrown` has been removed. Instead, import from `bevy_platform_support::collections` _or_ take a dependency on `hashbrown` directly. - `bevy_utils::Entry` has been removed. Instead, import from `bevy_platform_support::collections::hash_map` or `bevy_platform_support::collections::hash_set` as appropriate. - All of the above equally apply to `bevy::utils` and `bevy::platform_support`. ## Notes - I left `PreHashMap`, `PreHashMapExt`, and `TypeIdMap` in `bevy_utils` as they might be candidates for micro-crating. They can always be moved into `bevy_platform_support` at a later date if desired. |
||
|
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> |
||
|
github-actions[bot]
|
573b980685
|
Bump Version after Release (#17176)
Bump version after release This PR has been auto-generated --------- Co-authored-by: Bevy Auto Releaser <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: François Mockers <mockersf@gmail.com> |
||
|
François Mockers
|
fac0b34b20
|
remove reference to missing file in bevy_remote cargo.toml (#16057)
# Objective - bevy_remote Cargo.toml file references a readme that doesn't exist - This is blocking releasing the rc ## Solution - Remove the reference |
||
|
Liam Gallagher
|
26a5f7f9ca
|
Feature gate bevy_remote http transport. (#16019)
## Objective Be able to depend on the crate for the types without bringing in `smol-hyper` and other http dependencies. ## Solution Create a new `HTTP` feature that is enabled by default. |
||
|
Liam Gallagher
|
60cf7ca025
|
Refactor BRP to allow for 3rd-party transports (#15438)
## Objective Closes #15408 (somewhat) ## Solution - Moved the existing HTTP transport to its own module with its own plugin (`RemoteHttpPlugin`) (disabled on WASM) - Swapped out the `smol` crate for the smaller crates it re-exports to make it easier to keep out non-wasm code (HTTP transport needs `async-io` which can't build on WASM) - Added a new public `BrpSender` resource holding the matching sender for the `BrpReceiver`' (formally `BrpMailbox`). This allows other crates to send `BrpMessage`'s to the "mailbox". ## Testing TODO --------- Co-authored-by: Matty <weatherleymatthew@gmail.com> |
||
|
Matty
|
89e98b208f
|
Initial implementation of the Bevy Remote Protocol (Adopted) (#14880)
# Objective Adopted from #13563. The goal is to implement the Bevy Remote Protocol over HTTP/JSON, allowing the ECS to be interacted with remotely. ## Solution At a high level, there are really two separate things that have been undertaken here: 1. First, `RemotePlugin` has been created, which has the effect of embedding a [JSON-RPC](https://www.jsonrpc.org/specification) endpoint into a Bevy application. 2. Second, the [Bevy Remote Protocol verbs](https://gist.github.com/coreh/1baf6f255d7e86e4be29874d00137d1d#file-bevy-remote-protocol-md) (excluding `POLL`) have been implemented as remote methods for that JSON-RPC endpoint under a Bevy-exclusive namespace (e.g. `bevy/get`, `bevy/list`, etc.). To avoid some repetition, here is the crate-level documentation, which explains the request/response structure, built-in-methods, and custom method configuration: <details> <summary>Click to view crate-level docs</summary> ```rust //! An implementation of the Bevy Remote Protocol over HTTP and JSON, to allow //! for remote control of a Bevy app. //! //! Adding the [`RemotePlugin`] to your [`App`] causes Bevy to accept //! connections over HTTP (by default, on port 15702) while your app is running. //! These *remote clients* can inspect and alter the state of the //! entity-component system. Clients are expected to `POST` JSON requests to the //! root URL; see the `client` example for a trivial example of use. //! //! The Bevy Remote Protocol is based on the JSON-RPC 2.0 protocol. //! //! ## Request objects //! //! A typical client request might look like this: //! //! ```json //! { //! "method": "bevy/get", //! "id": 0, //! "params": { //! "entity": 4294967298, //! "components": [ //! "bevy_transform::components::transform::Transform" //! ] //! } //! } //! ``` //! //! The `id` and `method` fields are required. The `param` field may be omitted //! for certain methods: //! //! * `id` is arbitrary JSON data. The server completely ignores its contents, //! and the client may use it for any purpose. It will be copied via //! serialization and deserialization (so object property order, etc. can't be //! relied upon to be identical) and sent back to the client as part of the //! response. //! //! * `method` is a string that specifies one of the possible [`BrpRequest`] //! variants: `bevy/query`, `bevy/get`, `bevy/insert`, etc. It's case-sensitive. //! //! * `params` is parameter data specific to the request. //! //! For more information, see the documentation for [`BrpRequest`]. //! [`BrpRequest`] is serialized to JSON via `serde`, so [the `serde` //! documentation] may be useful to clarify the correspondence between the Rust //! structure and the JSON format. //! //! ## Response objects //! //! A response from the server to the client might look like this: //! //! ```json //! { //! "jsonrpc": "2.0", //! "id": 0, //! "result": { //! "bevy_transform::components::transform::Transform": { //! "rotation": { "x": 0.0, "y": 0.0, "z": 0.0, "w": 1.0 }, //! "scale": { "x": 1.0, "y": 1.0, "z": 1.0 }, //! "translation": { "x": 0.0, "y": 0.5, "z": 0.0 } //! } //! } //! } //! ``` //! //! The `id` field will always be present. The `result` field will be present if the //! request was successful. Otherwise, an `error` field will replace it. //! //! * `id` is the arbitrary JSON data that was sent as part of the request. It //! will be identical to the `id` data sent during the request, modulo //! serialization and deserialization. If there's an error reading the `id` field, //! it will be `null`. //! //! * `result` will be present if the request succeeded and will contain the response //! specific to the request. //! //! * `error` will be present if the request failed and will contain an error object //! with more information about the cause of failure. //! //! ## Error objects //! //! An error object might look like this: //! //! ```json //! { //! "code": -32602, //! "message": "Missing \"entity\" field" //! } //! ``` //! //! The `code` and `message` fields will always be present. There may also be a `data` field. //! //! * `code` is an integer representing the kind of an error that happened. Error codes documented //! in the [`error_codes`] module. //! //! * `message` is a short, one-sentence human-readable description of the error. //! //! * `data` is an optional field of arbitrary type containing additional information about the error. //! //! ## Built-in methods //! //! The Bevy Remote Protocol includes a number of built-in methods for accessing and modifying data //! in the ECS. Each of these methods uses the `bevy/` prefix, which is a namespace reserved for //! BRP built-in methods. //! //! ### bevy/get //! //! Retrieve the values of one or more components from an entity. //! //! `params`: //! - `entity`: The ID of the entity whose components will be fetched. //! - `components`: An array of fully-qualified type names of components to fetch. //! //! `result`: A map associating each type name to its value on the requested entity. //! //! ### bevy/query //! //! Perform a query over components in the ECS, returning all matching entities and their associated //! component values. //! //! All of the arrays that comprise this request are optional, and when they are not provided, they //! will be treated as if they were empty. //! //! `params`: //! `params`: //! - `data`: //! - `components` (optional): An array of fully-qualified type names of components to fetch. //! - `option` (optional): An array of fully-qualified type names of components to fetch optionally. //! - `has` (optional): An array of fully-qualified type names of components whose presence will be //! reported as boolean values. //! - `filter` (optional): //! - `with` (optional): An array of fully-qualified type names of components that must be present //! on entities in order for them to be included in results. //! - `without` (optional): An array of fully-qualified type names of components that must *not* be //! present on entities in order for them to be included in results. //! //! `result`: An array, each of which is an object containing: //! - `entity`: The ID of a query-matching entity. //! - `components`: A map associating each type name from `components`/`option` to its value on the matching //! entity if the component is present. //! - `has`: A map associating each type name from `has` to a boolean value indicating whether or not the //! entity has that component. If `has` was empty or omitted, this key will be omitted in the response. //! //! ### bevy/spawn //! //! Create a new entity with the provided components and return the resulting entity ID. //! //! `params`: //! - `components`: A map associating each component's fully-qualified type name with its value. //! //! `result`: //! - `entity`: The ID of the newly spawned entity. //! //! ### bevy/destroy //! //! Despawn the entity with the given ID. //! //! `params`: //! - `entity`: The ID of the entity to be despawned. //! //! `result`: null. //! //! ### bevy/remove //! //! Delete one or more components from an entity. //! //! `params`: //! - `entity`: The ID of the entity whose components should be removed. //! - `components`: An array of fully-qualified type names of components to be removed. //! //! `result`: null. //! //! ### bevy/insert //! //! Insert one or more components into an entity. //! //! `params`: //! - `entity`: The ID of the entity to insert components into. //! - `components`: A map associating each component's fully-qualified type name with its value. //! //! `result`: null. //! //! ### bevy/reparent //! //! Assign a new parent to one or more entities. //! //! `params`: //! - `entities`: An array of entity IDs of entities that will be made children of the `parent`. //! - `parent` (optional): The entity ID of the parent to which the child entities will be assigned. //! If excluded, the given entities will be removed from their parents. //! //! `result`: null. //! //! ### bevy/list //! //! List all registered components or all components present on an entity. //! //! When `params` is not provided, this lists all registered components. If `params` is provided, //! this lists only those components present on the provided entity. //! //! `params` (optional): //! - `entity`: The ID of the entity whose components will be listed. //! //! `result`: An array of fully-qualified type names of components. //! //! ## Custom methods //! //! In addition to the provided methods, the Bevy Remote Protocol can be extended to include custom //! methods. This is primarily done during the initialization of [`RemotePlugin`], although the //! methods may also be extended at runtime using the [`RemoteMethods`] resource. //! //! ### Example //! ```ignore //! fn main() { //! App::new() //! .add_plugins(DefaultPlugins) //! .add_plugins( //! // `default` adds all of the built-in methods, while `with_method` extends them //! RemotePlugin::default() //! .with_method("super_user/cool_method".to_owned(), path::to::my:🆒:handler) //! // ... more methods can be added by chaining `with_method` //! ) //! .add_systems( //! // ... standard application setup //! ) //! .run(); //! } //! ``` //! //! The handler is expected to be a system-convertible function which takes optional JSON parameters //! as input and returns a [`BrpResult`]. This means that it should have a type signature which looks //! something like this: //! ``` //! # use serde_json::Value; //! # use bevy_ecs::prelude::{In, World}; //! # use bevy_remote::BrpResult; //! fn handler(In(params): In<Option<Value>>, world: &mut World) -> BrpResult { //! todo!() //! } //! ``` //! //! Arbitrary system parameters can be used in conjunction with the optional `Value` input. The //! handler system will always run with exclusive `World` access. //! //! [the `serde` documentation]: https://serde.rs/ ``` </details> ### Message lifecycle At a high level, the lifecycle of client-server interactions is something like this: 1. The client sends one or more `BrpRequest`s. The deserialized version of that is just the Rust representation of a JSON-RPC request, and it looks like this: ```rust pub struct BrpRequest { /// The action to be performed. Parsing is deferred for the sake of error reporting. pub method: Option<Value>, /// Arbitrary data that will be returned verbatim to the client as part of /// the response. pub id: Option<Value>, /// The parameters, specific to each method. /// /// These are passed as the first argument to the method handler. /// Sometimes params can be omitted. pub params: Option<Value>, } ``` 2. These requests are accumulated in a mailbox resource (small lie but close enough). 3. Each update, the mailbox is drained by a system `process_remote_requests`, where each request is processed according to its `method`, which has an associated handler. Each handler is a Bevy system that runs with exclusive world access and returns a result; e.g.: ```rust pub fn process_remote_get_request(In(params): In<Option<Value>>, world: &World) -> BrpResult { // ... } ``` 4. The result (or an error) is reported back to the client. ## Testing This can be tested by using the `server` and `client` examples. The `client` example is not particularly exhaustive at the moment (it only creates barebones `bevy/query` requests) but is still informative. Other queries can be made using `curl` with the `server` example running. For example, to make a `bevy/list` request and list all registered components: ```bash curl -X POST -d '{ "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "bevy/list" }' 127.0.0.1:15702 | jq . ``` --- ## Future direction There were a couple comments on BRP versioning while this was in draft. I agree that BRP versioning is a good idea, but I think that it requires some consensus on a couple fronts: - First of all, what does the version actually mean? Is it a version for the protocol itself or for the `bevy/*` methods implemented using it? Both? - Where does the version actually live? The most natural place is just where we have `"jsonrpc"` right now (at least if it's versioning the protocol itself), but this means we're not actually conforming to JSON-RPC any more (so, for example, any client library used to construct JSON-RPC requests would stop working). I'm not really against that, but it's at least a real decision. - What do we actually do when we encounter mismatched versions? Adding handling for this would be actual scope creep instead of just a little add-on in my opinion. Another thing that would be nice is making the internal structure of the implementation less JSON-specific. Right now, for example, component values that will appear in server responses are quite eagerly converted to JSON `Value`s, which prevents disentangling the handler logic from the communication medium, but it can probably be done in principle and I imagine it would enable more code reuse (e.g. for custom method handlers) in addition to making the internals more readily usable for other formats. --------- Co-authored-by: Patrick Walton <pcwalton@mimiga.net> Co-authored-by: DragonGamesStudios <margos.michal@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Christopher Biscardi <chris@christopherbiscardi.com> Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com> |