# Objective
Now that #13432 has been merged, it's important we update our reflected
types to properly opt into this feature. If we do not, then this could
cause issues for users downstream who want to make use of
reflection-based cloning.
## Solution
This PR is broken into 4 commits:
1. Add `#[reflect(Clone)]` on all types marked `#[reflect(opaque)]` that
are also `Clone`. This is mandatory as these types would otherwise cause
the cloning operation to fail for any type that contains it at any
depth.
2. Update the reflection example to suggest adding `#[reflect(Clone)]`
on opaque types.
3. Add `#[reflect(clone)]` attributes on all fields marked
`#[reflect(ignore)]` that are also `Clone`. This prevents the ignored
field from causing the cloning operation to fail.
Note that some of the types that contain these fields are also `Clone`,
and thus can be marked `#[reflect(Clone)]`. This makes the
`#[reflect(clone)]` attribute redundant. However, I think it's safer to
keep it marked in the case that the `Clone` impl/derive is ever removed.
I'm open to removing them, though, if people disagree.
4. Finally, I added `#[reflect(Clone)]` on all types that are also
`Clone`. While not strictly necessary, it enables us to reduce the
generated output since we can just call `Clone::clone` directly instead
of calling `PartialReflect::reflect_clone` on each variant/field. It
also means we benefit from any optimizations or customizations made in
the `Clone` impl, including directly dereferencing `Copy` values and
increasing reference counters.
Along with that change I also took the liberty of adding any missing
registrations that I saw could be applied to the type as well, such as
`Default`, `PartialEq`, and `Hash`. There were hundreds of these to
edit, though, so it's possible I missed quite a few.
That last commit is **_massive_**. There were nearly 700 types to
update. So it's recommended to review the first three before moving onto
that last one.
Additionally, I can break the last commit off into its own PR or into
smaller PRs, but I figured this would be the easiest way of doing it
(and in a timely manner since I unfortunately don't have as much time as
I used to for code contributions).
## Testing
You can test locally with a `cargo check`:
```
cargo check --workspace --all-features
```
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>
# Objective
- https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/17111
## Solution
Set the `clippy::allow_attributes` and
`clippy::allow_attributes_without_reason` lints to `warn`, and bring
`bevy_ecs` in line with the new restrictions.
## Testing
This PR is a WIP; testing will happen after it's finished.
# Objective
Bevy seems to want to standardize on "American English" spellings. Not
sure if this is laid out anywhere in writing, but see also #15947.
While perusing the docs for `typos`, I noticed that it has a `locale`
config option and tried it out.
## Solution
Switch to `en-us` locale in the `typos` config and run `typos -w`
## Migration Guide
The following methods or fields have been renamed from `*dependants*` to
`*dependents*`.
- `ProcessorAssetInfo::dependants`
- `ProcessorAssetInfos::add_dependant`
- `ProcessorAssetInfos::non_existent_dependants`
- `AssetInfo::dependants_waiting_on_load`
- `AssetInfo::dependants_waiting_on_recursive_dep_load`
- `AssetInfos::loader_dependants`
- `AssetInfos::remove_dependants_and_labels`
# 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>
# 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.
# Objective
- Fixes#14974
## Solution
- Replace all* instances of `NonZero*` with `NonZero<*>`
## Testing
- CI passed locally.
---
## Notes
Within the `bevy_reflect` implementations for `std` types,
`impl_reflect_value!()` will continue to use the type aliases instead,
as it inappropriately parses the concrete type parameter as a generic
argument. If the `ZeroablePrimitive` trait was stable, or the macro
could be modified to accept a finite list of types, then we could fully
migrate.
# Objective
- Follow-up on some changes in #11498
- Unblock using `Identifier` to replace `ComponentId` internals.
## Solution
- Implement the same `Reflect` impls from `Entity` onto `Identifier` as
they share same/similar purposes,
## Testing
- No compile errors. Currently `Identifier` has no serialization impls,
so there's no need to test a serialization/deserialization roundtrip to
ensure correctness.
---
## Changelog
### Added
- Reflection implementations on `Identifier`.
# Objective
- Fixes#12976
## Solution
This one is a doozy.
- Run `cargo +beta clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features` and
fix all issues
- This includes:
- Moving inner attributes to be outer attributes, when the item in
question has both inner and outer attributes
- Use `ptr::from_ref` in more scenarios
- Extend the valid idents list used by `clippy:doc_markdown` with more
names
- Use `Clone::clone_from` when possible
- Remove redundant `ron` import
- Add backticks to **so many** identifiers and items
- I'm sorry whoever has to review this
---
## Changelog
- Added links to more identifiers in documentation.
# Objective
The purpose of this PR is to begin putting together a unified identifier
structure that can be used by entities and later components (as
entities) as well as relationship pairs for relations, to enable all of
these to be able to use the same storages. For the moment, to keep
things small and focused, only `Entity` is being changed to make use of
the new `Identifier` type, keeping `Entity`'s API and
serialization/deserialization the same. Further changes are for
follow-up PRs.
## Solution
`Identifier` is a wrapper around `u64` split into two `u32` segments
with the idea of being generalised to not impose restrictions on
variants. That is for `Entity` to do. Instead, it is a general API for
taking bits to then merge and map into a `u64` integer. It exposes
low/high methods to return the two value portions as `u32` integers,
with then the MSB masked for usage as a type flag, enabling entity kind
discrimination and future activation/deactivation semantics.
The layout in this PR for `Identifier` is described as below, going from
MSB -> LSB.
```
|F| High value | Low value |
|_|_______________________________|________________________________|
|1| 31 | 32 |
F = Bit Flags
```
The high component in this implementation has only 31 bits, but that
still leaves 2^31 or 2,147,483,648 values that can be stored still, more
than enough for any generation/relation kinds/etc usage. The low part is
a full 32-bit index. The flags allow for 1 bit to be used for
entity/pair discrimination, as these have different usages for the
low/high portions of the `Identifier`. More bits can be reserved for
more variants or activation/deactivation purposes, but this currently
has no use in bevy.
More bits could be reserved for future features at the cost of bits for
the high component, so how much to reserve is up for discussion. Also,
naming of the struct and methods are also subject to further
bikeshedding and feedback.
Also, because IDs can have different variants, I wonder if
`Entity::from_bits` needs to return a `Result` instead of potentially
panicking on receiving an invalid ID.
PR is provided as an early WIP to obtain feedback and notes on whether
this approach is viable.
---
## Changelog
### Added
New `Identifier` struct for unifying IDs.
### Changed
`Entity` changed to use new `Identifier`/`IdentifierMask` as the
underlying ID logic.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: vero <email@atlasdostal.com>
