7b5e4e3be0
11 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Carter Anderson
|
d8fa57bd7b
|
Switch ChildOf back to tuple struct (#18672)
# Objective In #17905 we swapped to a named field on `ChildOf` to help resolve variable naming ambiguity of child vs parent (ex: `child_of.parent` clearly reads as "I am accessing the parent of the child_of relationship", whereas `child_of.0` is less clear). Unfortunately this has the side effect of making initialization less ideal. `ChildOf { parent }` reads just as well as `ChildOf(parent)`, but `ChildOf { parent: root }` doesn't read nearly as well as `ChildOf(root)`. ## Solution Move back to `ChildOf(pub Entity)` but add a `child_of.parent()` function and use it for all accesses. The downside here is that users are no longer "forced" to access the parent field with `parent` nomenclature, but I think this strikes the right balance. Take a look at the diff. I think the results provide strong evidence for this change. Initialization has the benefit of reading much better _and_ of taking up significantly less space, as many lines go from 3 to 1, and we're cutting out a bunch of syntax in some cases. Sadly I do think this should land in 0.16 as the cost of doing this _after_ the relationships migration is high. |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
9b32e09551
|
bevy_reflect: Add clone registrations project-wide (#18307)
# 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 ``` |
||
|
Tim Overbeek
|
ccb7069e7f
|
Change ChildOf to Childof { parent: Entity} and support deriving Relationship and RelationshipTarget with named structs (#17905)
# Objective fixes #17896 ## Solution Change ChildOf ( Entity ) to ChildOf { parent: Entity } by doing this we also allow users to use named structs for relationship derives, When you have more than 1 field in a struct with named fields the macro will look for a field with the attribute #[relationship] and all of the other fields should implement the Default trait. Unnamed fields are still supported. When u have a unnamed struct with more than one field the macro will fail. Do we want to support something like this ? ```rust #[derive(Component)] #[relationship_target(relationship = ChildOf)] pub struct Children (#[relationship] Entity, u8); ``` I could add this, it but doesn't seem nice. ## Testing crates/bevy_ecs - cargo test ## Showcase ```rust use bevy_ecs::component::Component; use bevy_ecs::entity::Entity; #[derive(Component)] #[relationship(relationship_target = Children)] pub struct ChildOf { #[relationship] pub parent: Entity, internal: u8, }; #[derive(Component)] #[relationship_target(relationship = ChildOf)] pub struct Children { children: Vec<Entity> }; ``` --------- Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@Tims-MacBook-Pro.local> Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@c-001-001-042.client.nl.eduvpn.org> Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@c-001-001-059.client.nl.eduvpn.org> Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@c-001-001-054.client.nl.eduvpn.org> Co-authored-by: Tim Overbeek <oorbecktim@c-001-001-027.client.nl.eduvpn.org> |
||
|
ickshonpe
|
300fe4db4d
|
Store UI render target info locally per node (#17579)
# Objective It's difficult to understand or make changes to the UI systems because of how each system needs to individually track changes to scale factor, windows and camera targets in local hashmaps, particularly for new contributors. Any major change inevitably introduces new scale factor bugs. Instead of per-system resolution we can resolve the camera target info for all UI nodes in a system at the start of `PostUpdate` and then store it per-node in components that can be queried with change detection. Fixes #17578 Fixes #15143 ## Solution Store the UI render target's data locally per node in a component that is updated in `PostUpdate` before any other UI systems run. This component can be then be queried with change detection so that UI systems no longer need to have knowledge of cameras and windows and don't require fragile custom change detection solutions using local hashmaps. ## Showcase Compare `measure_text_system` from main (which has a bug the causes it to use the wrong scale factor when a node's camera target changes): ``` pub fn measure_text_system( mut scale_factors_buffer: Local<EntityHashMap<f32>>, mut last_scale_factors: Local<EntityHashMap<f32>>, fonts: Res<Assets<Font>>, camera_query: Query<(Entity, &Camera)>, default_ui_camera: DefaultUiCamera, ui_scale: Res<UiScale>, mut text_query: Query< ( Entity, Ref<TextLayout>, &mut ContentSize, &mut TextNodeFlags, &mut ComputedTextBlock, Option<&UiTargetCamera>, ), With<Node>, >, mut text_reader: TextUiReader, mut text_pipeline: ResMut<TextPipeline>, mut font_system: ResMut<CosmicFontSystem>, ) { scale_factors_buffer.clear(); let default_camera_entity = default_ui_camera.get(); for (entity, block, content_size, text_flags, computed, maybe_camera) in &mut text_query { let Some(camera_entity) = maybe_camera .map(UiTargetCamera::entity) .or(default_camera_entity) else { continue; }; let scale_factor = match scale_factors_buffer.entry(camera_entity) { Entry::Occupied(entry) => *entry.get(), Entry::Vacant(entry) => *entry.insert( camera_query .get(camera_entity) .ok() .and_then(|(_, c)| c.target_scaling_factor()) .unwrap_or(1.0) * ui_scale.0, ), }; if last_scale_factors.get(&camera_entity) != Some(&scale_factor) || computed.needs_rerender() || text_flags.needs_measure_fn || content_size.is_added() { create_text_measure( entity, &fonts, scale_factor.into(), text_reader.iter(entity), block, &mut text_pipeline, content_size, text_flags, computed, &mut font_system, ); } } core::mem::swap(&mut *last_scale_factors, &mut *scale_factors_buffer); } ``` with `measure_text_system` from this PR (which always uses the correct scale factor): ``` pub fn measure_text_system( fonts: Res<Assets<Font>>, mut text_query: Query< ( Entity, Ref<TextLayout>, &mut ContentSize, &mut TextNodeFlags, &mut ComputedTextBlock, Ref<ComputedNodeTarget>, ), With<Node>, >, mut text_reader: TextUiReader, mut text_pipeline: ResMut<TextPipeline>, mut font_system: ResMut<CosmicFontSystem>, ) { for (entity, block, content_size, text_flags, computed, computed_target) in &mut text_query { // Note: the ComputedTextBlock::needs_rerender bool is cleared in create_text_measure(). if computed_target.is_changed() || computed.needs_rerender() || text_flags.needs_measure_fn || content_size.is_added() { create_text_measure( entity, &fonts, computed_target.scale_factor.into(), text_reader.iter(entity), block, &mut text_pipeline, content_size, text_flags, computed, &mut font_system, ); } } } ``` ## Testing I removed an alarming number of tests from the `layout` module but they were mostly to do with the deleted camera synchronisation logic. The remaining tests should all pass now. The most relevant examples are `multiple_windows` and `split_screen`, the behaviour of both should be unchanged from main. --------- Co-authored-by: UkoeHB <37489173+UkoeHB@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
ea578415e1
|
Improved Spawn APIs and Bundle Effects (#17521)
## Objective
A major critique of Bevy at the moment is how boilerplatey it is to
compose (and read) entity hierarchies:
```rust
commands
.spawn(Foo)
.with_children(|p| {
p.spawn(Bar).with_children(|p| {
p.spawn(Baz);
});
p.spawn(Bar).with_children(|p| {
p.spawn(Baz);
});
});
```
There is also currently no good way to statically define and return an
entity hierarchy from a function. Instead, people often do this
"internally" with a Commands function that returns nothing, making it
impossible to spawn the hierarchy in other cases (direct World spawns,
ChildSpawner, etc).
Additionally, because this style of API results in creating the
hierarchy bits _after_ the initial spawn of a bundle, it causes ECS
archetype changes (and often expensive table moves).
Because children are initialized after the fact, we also can't count
them to pre-allocate space. This means each time a child inserts itself,
it has a high chance of overflowing the currently allocated capacity in
the `RelationshipTarget` collection, causing literal worst-case
reallocations.
We can do better!
## Solution
The Bundle trait has been extended to support an optional
`BundleEffect`. This is applied directly to World immediately _after_
the Bundle has fully inserted. Note that this is
[intentionally](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/16920)
_not done via a deferred Command_, which would require repeatedly
copying each remaining subtree of the hierarchy to a new command as we
walk down the tree (_not_ good performance).
This allows us to implement the new `SpawnRelated` trait for all
`RelationshipTarget` impls, which looks like this in practice:
```rust
world.spawn((
Foo,
Children::spawn((
Spawn((
Bar,
Children::spawn(Spawn(Baz)),
)),
Spawn((
Bar,
Children::spawn(Spawn(Baz)),
)),
))
))
```
`Children::spawn` returns `SpawnRelatedBundle<Children, L:
SpawnableList>`, which is a `Bundle` that inserts `Children`
(preallocated to the size of the `SpawnableList::size_hint()`).
`Spawn<B: Bundle>(pub B)` implements `SpawnableList` with a size of 1.
`SpawnableList` is also implemented for tuples of `SpawnableList` (same
general pattern as the Bundle impl).
There are currently three built-in `SpawnableList` implementations:
```rust
world.spawn((
Foo,
Children::spawn((
Spawn(Name::new("Child1")),
SpawnIter(["Child2", "Child3"].into_iter().map(Name::new),
SpawnWith(|parent: &mut ChildSpawner| {
parent.spawn(Name::new("Child4"));
parent.spawn(Name::new("Child5"));
})
)),
))
```
We get the benefits of "structured init", but we have nice flexibility
where it is required!
Some readers' first instinct might be to try to remove the need for the
`Spawn` wrapper. This is impossible in the Rust type system, as a tuple
of "child Bundles to be spawned" and a "tuple of Components to be added
via a single Bundle" is ambiguous in the Rust type system. There are two
ways to resolve that ambiguity:
1. By adding support for variadics to the Rust type system (removing the
need for nested bundles). This is out of scope for this PR :)
2. Using wrapper types to resolve the ambiguity (this is what I did in
this PR).
For the single-entity spawn cases, `Children::spawn_one` does also
exist, which removes the need for the wrapper:
```rust
world.spawn((
Foo,
Children::spawn_one(Bar),
))
```
## This works for all Relationships
This API isn't just for `Children` / `ChildOf` relationships. It works
for any relationship type, and they can be mixed and matched!
```rust
world.spawn((
Foo,
Observers::spawn((
Spawn(Observer::new(|trigger: Trigger<FuseLit>| {})),
Spawn(Observer::new(|trigger: Trigger<Exploded>| {})),
)),
OwnerOf::spawn(Spawn(Bar))
Children::spawn(Spawn(Baz))
))
```
## Macros
While `Spawn` is necessary to satisfy the type system, we _can_ remove
the need to express it via macros. The example above can be expressed
more succinctly using the new `children![X]` macro, which internally
produces `Children::spawn(Spawn(X))`:
```rust
world.spawn((
Foo,
children![
(
Bar,
children![Baz],
),
(
Bar,
children![Baz],
),
]
))
```
There is also a `related!` macro, which is a generic version of the
`children!` macro that supports any relationship type:
```rust
world.spawn((
Foo,
related!(Children[
(
Bar,
related!(Children[Baz]),
),
(
Bar,
related!(Children[Baz]),
),
])
))
```
## Returning Hierarchies from Functions
Thanks to these changes, the following pattern is now possible:
```rust
fn button(text: &str, color: Color) -> impl Bundle {
(
Node {
width: Val::Px(300.),
height: Val::Px(100.),
..default()
},
BackgroundColor(color),
children![
Text::new(text),
]
)
}
fn ui() -> impl Bundle {
(
Node {
width: Val::Percent(100.0),
height: Val::Percent(100.0),
..default(),
},
children![
button("hello", BLUE),
button("world", RED),
]
)
}
// spawn from a system
fn system(mut commands: Commands) {
commands.spawn(ui());
}
// spawn directly on World
world.spawn(ui());
```
## Additional Changes and Notes
* `Bundle::from_components` has been split out into
`BundleFromComponents::from_components`, enabling us to implement
`Bundle` for types that cannot be "taken" from the ECS (such as the new
`SpawnRelatedBundle`).
* The `NoBundleEffect` trait (which implements `BundleEffect`) is
implemented for empty tuples (and tuples of empty tuples), which allows
us to constrain APIs to only accept bundles that do not have effects.
This is critical because the current batch spawn APIs cannot efficiently
apply BundleEffects in their current form (as doing so in-place could
invalidate the cached raw pointers). We could consider allocating a
buffer of the effects to be applied later, but that does have
performance implications that could offset the balance and value of the
batched APIs (and would likely require some refactors to the underlying
code). I've decided to be conservative here. We can consider relaxing
that requirement on those APIs later, but that should be done in a
followup imo.
* I've ported a few examples to illustrate real-world usage. I think in
a followup we should port all examples to the `children!` form whenever
possible (and for cases that require things like SpawnIter, use the raw
APIs).
* Some may ask "why not use the `Relationship` to spawn (ex:
`ChildOf::spawn(Foo)`) instead of the `RelationshipTarget` (ex:
`Children::spawn(Spawn(Foo))`)?". That _would_ allow us to remove the
`Spawn` wrapper. I've explicitly chosen to disallow this pattern.
`Bundle::Effect` has the ability to create _significant_ weirdness.
Things in `Bundle` position look like components. For example
`world.spawn((Foo, ChildOf::spawn(Bar)))` _looks and reads_ like Foo is
a child of Bar. `ChildOf` is in Foo's "component position" but it is not
a component on Foo. This is a huge problem. Now that `Bundle::Effect`
exists, we should be _very_ principled about keeping the "weird and
unintuitive behavior" to a minimum. Things that read like components
_should be the components they appear to be".
## Remaining Work
* The macros are currently trivially implemented using macro_rules and
are currently limited to the max tuple length. They will require a
proc_macro implementation to work around the tuple length limit.
## Next Steps
* Port the remaining examples to use `children!` where possible and raw
`Spawn` / `SpawnIter` / `SpawnWith` where the flexibility of the raw API
is required.
## Migration Guide
Existing spawn patterns will continue to work as expected.
Manual Bundle implementations now require a `BundleEffect` associated
type. Exisiting bundles would have no bundle effect, so use `()`.
Additionally `Bundle::from_components` has been moved to the new
`BundleFromComponents` trait.
```rust
// Before
unsafe impl Bundle for X {
unsafe fn from_components<T, F>(ctx: &mut T, func: &mut F) -> Self {
}
/* remaining bundle impl here */
}
// After
unsafe impl Bundle for X {
type Effect = ();
/* remaining bundle impl here */
}
unsafe impl BundleFromComponents for X {
unsafe fn from_components<T, F>(ctx: &mut T, func: &mut F) -> Self {
}
}
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Emerson Coskey <emerson@coskey.dev>
|
||
|
ickshonpe
|
6be11a8a42
|
Change GhostNode into a unit type (#17692)
# Objective The feature gates for the `UiChildren` and `UiRootNodes` system params make the unconstructable `GhostNode` `PhantomData` trick redundant. ## Solution Remove the `GhostNode::new` method and change `GhostNode` into a unit struct. ## Testing ```cargo run --example ghost_nodes``` still works |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
ba5e71f53d
|
Parent -> ChildOf (#17427)
Fixes #17412 ## Objective `Parent` uses the "has a X" naming convention. There is increasing sentiment that we should use the "is a X" naming convention for relationships (following #17398). This leaves `Children` as-is because there is prevailing sentiment that `Children` is clearer than `ParentOf` in many cases (especially when treating it like a collection). This renames `Parent` to `ChildOf`. This is just the implementation PR. To discuss the path forward, do so in #17412. ## Migration Guide - The `Parent` component has been renamed to `ChildOf`. |
||
|
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> |
||
|
ickshonpe
|
17e3b850bd
|
Simplified UI tree navigation without ghost_nodes (#17143)
# Objective There is a large performance regression in the UI systems in 0.15 because the `UiChildren` and `UiRootRootNodes` system params (even with `ghost_nodes` disabled) are really inefficient compared to regular queries and can trigger a heap allocation with large numbers of children. ## Solution Replace the `UiChildren` and `UiRootRootNodes` system params with simplified versions when the `ghost_nodes` feature is disabled. ## Testing yellow this PR, red main cargo run --example many_buttons --features "trace_tracy" --release `ui_stack_system` <img width="494" alt="stack" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4a09485f-0ded-4e54-bd47-ffbce869051a" /> `ui_layout_system` <img width="467" alt="unghosted" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9d906b20-66b6-4257-9eef-578de1827628" /> `update_clipping_system` <img width="454" alt="clipping" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/320b50e8-1a1d-423a-95a0-42799ae72fc5" /> |
||
|
VitalyR
|
eb19a9ea0b
|
Migrate UI bundles to required components (#15898)
# Objective - Migrate UI bundles to required components, fixes #15889 ## Solution - deprecate `NodeBundle` in favor of `Node` - deprecate `ImageBundle` in favor of `UiImage` - deprecate `ButtonBundle` in favor of `Button` ## Testing CI. ## Migration Guide - Replace all uses of `NodeBundle` with `Node`. e.g. ```diff commands - .spawn(NodeBundle { - style: Style { + .spawn(( + Node::default(), + Style { width: Val::Percent(100.), align_items: AlignItems::Center, justify_content: JustifyContent::Center, ..default() }, - ..default() - }) + )) ``` - Replace all uses of `ButtonBundle` with `Button`. e.g. ```diff .spawn(( - ButtonBundle { - style: Style { - width: Val::Px(w), - height: Val::Px(h), - // horizontally center child text - justify_content: JustifyContent::Center, - // vertically center child text - align_items: AlignItems::Center, - margin: UiRect::all(Val::Px(20.0)), - ..default() - }, - image: image.clone().into(), + Button, + Style { + width: Val::Px(w), + height: Val::Px(h), + // horizontally center child text + justify_content: JustifyContent::Center, + // vertically center child text + align_items: AlignItems::Center, + margin: UiRect::all(Val::Px(20.0)), ..default() }, + UiImage::from(image.clone()), ImageScaleMode::Sliced(slicer.clone()), )) ``` - Replace all uses of `ImageBundle` with `UiImage`. e.g. ```diff - commands.spawn(ImageBundle { - image: UiImage { + commands.spawn(( + UiImage { texture: metering_mask, ..default() }, - style: Style { + Style { width: Val::Percent(100.0), height: Val::Percent(100.0), ..default() }, - ..default() - }); + )); ``` --------- Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com> |
||
|
Alice Cecile
|
76744bf58c
|
Mark ghost nodes as experimental and partially feature flag them (#15961)
# Objective As discussed in #15341, ghost nodes are a contentious and experimental feature. In the interest of enabling ecosystem experimentation, we've decided to keep them in Bevy 0.15. That said, we don't use them internally, and don't expect third-party crates to support them. If the experimentation returns a negative result (they aren't very useful, an alternative design is preferred etc) they will be removed. We should clearly communicate this status to users, and make sure that users don't use ghost nodes in their projects without a very clear understanding of what they're getting themselves into. ## Solution To make life easy for users (and Bevy), `GhostNode` and all associated helpers remain public and are always available. However, actually constructing these requires enabling a feature flag that's clearly marked as experimental. To do so, I've added a meaningless private field. When the feature flag is enabled, our constructs (`new` and `default`) can be used. I've added a `new` constructor, which should be preferred over `Default::default` as that can be readily deprecated, allowing us to prompt users to swap over to the much nicer `GhostNode` syntax once this is a unit struct again. Full credit: this was mostly @cart's design: I'm just implementing it! ## Testing I've run the ghost_nodes example and it fails to compile without the feature flag. With the feature flag, it works fine :) --------- Co-authored-by: Zachary Harrold <zac@harrold.com.au> |