# Objective
Fix https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/19617
# Solution
Add newlines before all impl blocks.
I suspect that at least some of these will be objectionable! If there's
a desired Bevy style for this then I'll update the PR. If not then we
can just close it - it's the work of a single find and replace.
# Objective
Currently, `bevy_ecs`'s `children!` macro only supports spawning up to
twelve children at once. Ideally there would be no limit.
## Solution
`children!` is limited because `SpawnableList`, [the primary trait bound
here](https://docs.rs/bevy/0.16.0-rc.5/bevy/ecs/hierarchy/struct.Children.html#method.spawn),
uses the fake variadics pattern on tuples of up to twelve elements.
However, since a tuple itself implements `SpawnableList`, we can simply
nest tuples of entities when we run out of room.
This PR achieves this using `macro_rules` macros with a bit of brute
force, following [some discussion on
Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1362174415458013314).
If we create patterns for lists of up to eleven bundles, then use a
repetition pattern to handle the rest, we can "special-case" the
recursion into a nested tuple.
In principle, this would permit an arbitrary number of children, but
Rust's recursion limits will cut things short at around 1400 elements by
default. Of course, it's generally not a good idea to stick that many
bundles in a single invocation, but it might be worth mentioning in the
docs.
## Implementation notes
### Why are cases 0-11 expanded by hand?
We could make use of a tertiary macro:
```rs
macro_rules! recursive_spawn {
// so that this...
($a:expr, $b:expr) => {
(
$crate::spawn::Spawn($a),
$crate::spawn::Spawn($b),
)
};
// becomes this...
($a:expr, $b:expr) => {
$crate::spawn_tuple!($a, $b)
};
}
```
But I already feel a little bad exporting `recursive_spawn`. I'd really
like to avoid exposing more internals, even if they are annotated with
`#[doc(hidden)]`. If I had to guess, I'd say it'll also make the
expansion a tiny bit slower.
### Do we really need to handle up to twelve elements in the macro?
The macro is a little long, but doing it this way maximizes the
"flatness" of the types to be spawned. This should improve the codegen a
bit and makes the macro output a little bit easier to look at.
## Future work
The `related!` macro is essentially the same as `children!`, so if this
direction is accepted, `related!` should receive the same treatment. I
imagine we'd want to extract out the `recursive_spawn` macro into its
own file since it can be used for both. If this should be tackled in
this PR, let me know!
## Testing
This change is fairly trivial, but I added a single test to verify that
it compiles and nothing goes wrong once recursion starts happening. It's
pretty easy to verify that the change works in practice -- just spawn
over twelve entities as children at once!
# Objective
Fixes#18678
## Solution
Moved the current `with_related` method to `with_relationships` and
added a new `with_related` that uses a bundle.
I'm not entirely sold on the name just yet, if anyone has any ideas let
me know.
## Testing
I wasn't able to test these changes because it crashed my computer every
time I tried (fun). But there don't seem to be any tests that use the
old `with_related` method so it should be fine, hopefully
## Showcase
```rust
commands.spawn_empty()
.with_related::<Relationship>(Name::new("Related thingy"))
.with_relationships(|rel| {
rel.spawn(Name::new("Second related thingy"));
});
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
# Objective
In updating examples to use the Improved Spawning API I got tripped up
on being able to spawn children with a Vec. I eventually figured out
that I could use `Children::spawn(SpawnIter(my_vec.into_iter()))` but
thought there might be a more ergonomic way to approach it. After
tinkering with it for a while I came up with the implementation here. It
allows authors to use `Children::spawn(my_vec)` as an equivalent
implementation.
## Solution
- Implements `<R: Relationship, B: Bundle SpawnableList<R> for Vec<B>`
- uses `alloc::vec::Vec` for compatibility with `no_std` (`std::Vec`
also inherits implementations against the `alloc::vec::Vec` because std
is a re-export of the alloc struct, thanks @bushrat011899 for the info
on this!)
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
- Opened the examples before and after and verified the same behavior
was observed. I did this on Ubuntu 24.04.2 LTS using `--features
wayland`.
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
- Other OS's and features can't hurt, but this is such a small change it
shouldn't be a problem.
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
- Run the examples yourself with and without these changes.
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
- see above
## Showcase
n/a
## Migration Guide
- Optional: you may use the new API to spawn `Vec`s of `Bundle` instead
of using the `SpawnIter` approach.
# Objective
This is an alternative to #17871 and #17701 for tracking issue #18155.
This thanks to @maniwani for help with this design.
The goal is to enable component ids to be reserved from multiple threads
concurrently and with only `&World`. This contributes to assets as
entities, read-only query and system parameter initialization, etc.
## What's wrong with #17871 ?
In #17871, I used my proposed staging utilities to allow *fully*
registering components from any thread concurrently with only
`&Components`. However, if we want to pursue components as entities
(which is desirable for a great many reasons. See
[here](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1346499196655505534)
on discord), this staging isn't going to work. After all, if registering
a component requires spawning an entity, and spawning an entity requires
`&mut World`, it is impossible to register a component fully with only
`&World`.
## Solution
But what if we don't have to register it all the way? What if it's
enough to just know the `ComponentId` it will have once it is registered
and to queue it to be registered at a later time? Spoiler alert: That is
all we need for these features.
Here's the basic design:
Queue a registration:
1. Check if it has already been registered.
2. Check if it has already been queued.
3. Reserve a `ComponentId`.
4. Queue the registration at that id.
Direct (normal) registration:
1. Check if this registration has been queued.
2. If it has, use the queued registration instead.
3. Otherwise, proceed like normal.
Appllying the queue:
1. Pop queued items off one by one.
2. Register them directly.
One other change:
The whole point of this design over #17871 is to facilitate coupling
component registration with the World. To ensure that this would fully
work with that, I went ahead and moved the `ComponentId` generator onto
the world itself. That stemmed a couple of minor organizational changes
(see migration guide). As we do components as entities, we will replace
this generator with `Entities`, which lives on `World` too. Doing this
move early let me verify the design and will reduce migration headaches
in the future. If components as entities is as close as I think it is, I
don't think splitting this up into different PRs is worth it. If it is
not as close as it is, it might make sense to still do #17871 in the
meantime (see the risks section). I'll leave it up to y'all what we end
up doing though.
## Risks and Testing
The biggest downside of this compared to #17871 is that now we have to
deal with correct but invalid `ComponentId`s. They are invalid because
the component still isn't registered, but they are correct because, once
registered, the component will have exactly that id.
However, the only time this becomes a problem is if some code violates
safety rules by queuing a registration and using the returned id as if
it was valid. As this is a new feature though, nothing in Bevy does
this, so no new tests were added for it. When we do use it, I left
detailed docs to help mitigate issues here, and we can test those
usages. Ex: we will want some tests on using queries initialized from
queued registrations.
## Migration Guide
Component registration can now be queued with only `&World`. To
facilitate this, a few APIs needed to be moved around.
The following functions have moved from `Components` to
`ComponentsRegistrator`:
- `register_component`
- `register_component_with_descriptor`
- `register_resource_with_descriptor`
- `register_non_send`
- `register_resource`
- `register_required_components_manual`
Accordingly, functions in `Bundle` and `Component` now take
`ComponentsRegistrator` instead of `Components`.
You can obtain `ComponentsRegistrator` from the new
`World::components_registrator`.
You can obtain `ComponentsQueuedRegistrator` from the new
`World::components_queue`, and use it to stage component registration if
desired.
# Open Question
Can we verify that it is enough to queue registration with `&World`? I
don't think it would be too difficult to package this up into a
`Arc<MyComponentsManager>` type thing if we need to, but keeping this on
`&World` certainly simplifies things. If we do need the `Arc`, we'll
need to look into partitioning `Entities` for components as entities, so
we can keep most of the allocation fast on `World` and only keep a
smaller partition in the `Arc`. I'd love an SME on assets as entities to
shed some light on this.
---------
Co-authored-by: andriyDev <andriydzikh@gmail.com>
## 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>
