# Objective
Change `ScrollPosition` to newtype `Vec2`. It's easier to work with a
`Vec2` wrapper than individual fields.
I'm not sure why this wasn't newtyped to start with. Maybe the intent
was to support responsive coordinates eventually but that probably isn't
very useful or straightforward to implement. And even if we do want to
support responsive coords in the future, it can newtype `Val2`.
## Solution
Change `ScrollPosition` to newtype `Vec2`.
Also added some extra details to the doc comments.
## Testing
Try the `scroll` example.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
Because we want to be able to support more notification options in the
future (in addition to just using registered one-shot systems), the
`Option<SystemId>` notifications have been changed to a new enum,
`Callback`.
@alice-i-cecile
# Objective
I was lurking and noticed that some links to the Bevy website were not
updated in newer code (`bevyengine.org` -> `bevy.org`).
## Solution
- Look for `bevyengine.org` occurrences in the current code, replace
them with `bevy.org`.
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how? I visited the Bevy website!
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
## Longer term
- Maybe add a lint to flag references to the old website but I don't
know how to do that. But not sure it's needed as the more time will pass
the less it will be relevant.
# Objective
This PR introduces Bevy Feathers, an opinionated widget toolkit and
theming system intended for use by the Bevy Editor, World Inspector, and
other tools.
The `bevy_feathers` crate is incomplete and hidden behind an
experimental feature flag. The API is going to change significantly
before release.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Bump version after release
This PR has been auto-generated
Fixes#19766
---------
Co-authored-by: Bevy Auto Releaser <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: François Mockers <francois.mockers@vleue.com>
Co-authored-by: François Mockers <mockersf@gmail.com>
Click to focus is now a global observer.
# Objective
Previously, the "click to focus" behavior was implemented in each
individual headless widget, producing redundant logic.
## Solution
The new scheme is to have a global observer which looks for pointer down
events and triggers an `AcquireFocus` event on the target. This event
bubbles until it finds an entity with `TabIndex`, and then focuses it.
## Testing
Tested the changes using the various examples that have focusable
widgets. (This will become easier to test when I add focus ring support
to the examples, but that's for another day. For now you just have to
know which keys to press.)
## Migration
This change is backwards-compatible. People who want the new behavior
will need to install the new plugin.
# Objective
This is part of the "core widgets" effort:
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/19236.
## Solution
This adds the "core checkbox" widget type.
## Testing
Tested using examples core_widgets and core_widgets_observers.
Note to reviewers: I reorganized the code in the examples, so the diffs
are large because of code moves.
# Objective
The position for track clicks in `core_slider` is calculated incorrectly
when using `UiScale`.
## Solution
`trigger.event().pointer_location.position` uses logical window
coordinates, that is:
`position = physical_position / window_scale_factor`
while `ComputedNodeTarget::scale_factor` returns the window scale factor
multiplied by Ui Scale:
`target_scale_factor = window_scale_factor * ui_scale`
So to get the physical position need to divide by the `UiScale`:
```
position * target_scale_factor / ui_scale
= (physical_postion / window_scale_factor) * (window_scale_factor * ui_scale) / ui_scale
= physical_position
```
I thought this was fixed during the slider PR review, but must have got
missed somewhere or lost in a merge.
## Testing
Can test using the `core_widgets` example` with
`.insert_resource(UiScale(2.))` added to the bevy app.
# Objective
When the `CoreSlider`s `on_change` is set to None, Keyboard input, like
ArrowKeys, does not update the `SliderValue`.
## Solution
Handle the missing case, like it is done for Pointer.
## Testing
- Did you test these changes?
Yes: core_widgets & core_widgets_observers
in both examples one has to remove / comment out the setting of
`CoreSlider::on_change` to test the case of `on_change` being none.
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
No not that I am aware of.
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
Yes: core_widgets & core_widgets_observers
in both examples one has to remove / comment out the setting of
`CoreSlider::on_change` to test the case of `on_change` being none.
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
I tested on linux + wayland. But it is unlikely that it would effect
outcomes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# 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.
# Objective
This is part of the "core widgets" effort: #19236.
## Solution
This PR adds the "core slider" widget to the collection.
## Testing
Tested using examples `core_widgets` and `core_widgets_observers`.
---------
Co-authored-by: ickshonpe <david.curthoys@googlemail.com>
# 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.
# Objective
#19366 implemented core button widgets, which included the `Depressed`
state component.
`Depressed` was chosen instead of `Pressed` to avoid conflict with the
`Pointer<Pressed>` event, but it is problematic and awkward in many
ways:
- Using the word "depressed" for such a high-traffic type is not great
due to the obvious connection to "depressed" as in depression.
- "Depressed" is not what I would search for if I was looking for a
component like this, and I'm not aware of any other engine or UI
framework using the term.
- `Depressed` is not a very natural pair to the `Pointer<Pressed>`
event.
- It might be because I'm not a native English speaker, but I have very
rarely heard someone say "a button is depressed". Seeing it, my mind
initially goes from "depression??" to "oh, de-pressed, meaning released"
and definitely not "is pressed", even though that *is* also a valid
meaning for it.
A related problem is that the current `Pointer<Pressed>` and
`Pointer<Released>` event names use a different verb tense than all of
our other observer events such as `Pointer<Click>` or
`Pointer<DragStart>`. By fixing this and renaming `Pressed` (and
`Released`), we can then use `Pressed` instead of `Depressed` for the
state component.
Additionally, the `IsHovered` and `IsDirectlyHovered` components added
in #19366 use an inconsistent naming; the other similar components don't
use an `Is` prefix. It also makes query filters like `Has<IsHovered>`
and `With<IsHovered>` a bit more awkward.
This is partially related to Cart's [picking concept
proposal](https://gist.github.com/cart/756e48a149db2838028be600defbd24a?permalink_comment_id=5598154).
## Solution
- Rename `Pointer<Pressed>` to `Pointer<Press>`
- Rename `Pointer<Released>` to `Pointer<Release>`
- Rename `Depressed` to `Pressed`
- Rename `IsHovered` to `Hovered`
- Rename `IsDirectlyHovered` to `DirectlyHovered`
# Objective
Part of #19236
## Solution
Adds a new `bevy_core_widgets` crate containing headless widget
implementations. This PR adds a single `CoreButton` widget, more widgets
to be added later once this is approved.
## Testing
There's an example, ui/core_widgets.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
