aa241672e1
7 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Gino Valente
|
aa241672e1
|
bevy_reflect: Nested TypeInfo getters (#13321)
# Objective
Right now, `TypeInfo` can be accessed directly from a type using either
`Typed::type_info` or `Reflect::get_represented_type_info`.
However, once that `TypeInfo` is accessed, any nested types must be
accessed via the `TypeRegistry`.
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo {
bar: usize
}
let registry = TypeRegistry::default();
let TypeInfo::Struct(type_info) = Foo::type_info() else {
panic!("expected struct info");
};
let field = type_info.field("bar").unwrap();
let field_info = registry.get_type_info(field.type_id()).unwrap();
assert!(field_info.is::<usize>());;
```
## Solution
Enable nested types within a `TypeInfo` to be retrieved directly.
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo {
bar: usize
}
let TypeInfo::Struct(type_info) = Foo::type_info() else {
panic!("expected struct info");
};
let field = type_info.field("bar").unwrap();
let field_info = field.type_info().unwrap();
assert!(field_info.is::<usize>());;
```
The particular implementation was chosen for two reasons.
Firstly, we can't just store `TypeInfo` inside another `TypeInfo`
directly. This is because some types are recursive and would result in a
deadlock when trying to create the `TypeInfo` (i.e. it has to create the
`TypeInfo` before it can use it, but it also needs the `TypeInfo` before
it can create it). Therefore, we must instead store the function so it
can be retrieved lazily.
I had considered also using a `OnceLock` or something to lazily cache
the info, but I figured we can look into optimizations later. The API
should remain the same with or without the `OnceLock`.
Secondly, a new wrapper trait had to be introduced: `MaybeTyped`. Like
`RegisterForReflection`, this trait is `#[doc(hidden)]` and only exists
so that we can properly handle dynamic type fields without requiring
them to implement `Typed`. We don't want dynamic types to implement
`Typed` due to the fact that it would make the return type
`Option<&'static TypeInfo>` for all types even though only the dynamic
types ever need to return `None` (see #6971 for details).
Users should never have to interact with this trait as it has a blanket
impl for all `Typed` types. And `Typed` is automatically implemented
when deriving `Reflect` (as it is required).
The one downside is we do need to return `Option<&'static TypeInfo>`
from all these new methods so that we can handle the dynamic cases. If
we didn't have to, we'd be able to get rid of the `Option` entirely. But
I think that's an okay tradeoff for this one part of the API, and keeps
the other APIs intact.
## Testing
This PR contains tests to verify everything works as expected. You can
test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Changelog
### Public Changes
- Added `ArrayInfo::item_info` method
- Added `NamedField::type_info` method
- Added `UnnamedField::type_info` method
- Added `ListInfo::item_info` method
- Added `MapInfo::key_info` method
- Added `MapInfo::value_info` method
- All active fields now have a `Typed` bound (remember that this is
automatically satisfied for all types that derive `Reflect`)
### Internal Changes
- Added `MaybeTyped` trait
## Migration Guide
All active fields for reflected types (including lists, maps, tuples,
etc.), must implement `Typed`. For the majority of users this won't have
any visible impact.
However, users implementing `Reflect` manually may need to update their
types to implement `Typed` if they weren't already.
Additionally, custom dynamic types will need to implement the new hidden
`MaybeTyped` trait.
|
||
|
Brezak
|
9c4ac7c297
|
Finish the work on try_apply (#12646)
# Objective Finish the `try_apply` implementation started in #6770 by @feyokorenhof. Supersedes and closes #6770. Closes #6182 ## Solution Add `try_apply` to `Reflect` and implement it in all the places that implement `Reflect`. --- ## Changelog Added `try_apply` to `Reflect`. --------- Co-authored-by: Feyo Korenhof <feyokorenhof@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
radiish
|
262846e702
|
reflect: TypePath part 2 (#8768)
# Objective
- Followup to #7184.
- ~Deprecate `TypeUuid` and remove its internal references.~ No longer
part of this PR.
- Use `TypePath` for the type registry, and (de)serialisation instead of
`std::any::type_name`.
- Allow accessing type path information behind proxies.
## Solution
- Introduce methods on `TypeInfo` and friends for dynamically querying
type path. These methods supersede the old `type_name` methods.
- Remove `Reflect::type_name` in favor of `DynamicTypePath::type_path`
and `TypeInfo::type_path_table`.
- Switch all uses of `std::any::type_name` in reflection, non-debugging
contexts to use `TypePath`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `TypePathTable` for dynamically accessing methods on `TypePath`
through `TypeInfo` and the type registry.
- Removed `type_name` from all `TypeInfo`-like structs.
- Added `type_path` and `type_path_table` methods to all `TypeInfo`-like
structs.
- Removed `Reflect::type_name` in favor of
`DynamicTypePath::reflect_type_path` and `TypeInfo::type_path`.
- Changed the signature of all `DynamicTypePath` methods to return
strings with a static lifetime.
## Migration Guide
- Rely on `TypePath` instead of `std::any::type_name` for all stability
guarantees and for use in all reflection contexts, this is used through
with one of the following APIs:
- `TypePath::type_path` if you have a concrete type and not a value.
- `DynamicTypePath::reflect_type_path` if you have an `dyn Reflect`
value without a concrete type.
- `TypeInfo::type_path` for use through the registry or if you want to
work with the represented type of a `DynamicFoo`.
- Remove `type_name` from manual `Reflect` implementations.
- Use `type_path` and `type_path_table` in place of `type_name` on
`TypeInfo`-like structs.
- Use `get_with_type_path(_mut)` over `get_with_type_name(_mut)`.
## Note to reviewers
I think if anything we were a little overzealous in merging #7184 and we
should take that extra care here.
In my mind, this is the "point of no return" for `TypePath` and while I
think we all agree on the design, we should carefully consider if the
finer details and current implementations are actually how we want them
moving forward.
For example [this incorrect `TypePath` implementation for
`String`](
|
||
|
Gino Valente
|
aeeb20ec4c
|
bevy_reflect: FromReflect Ergonomics Implementation (#6056)
# Objective **This implementation is based on https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/pull/59.** --- Resolves #4597 Full details and motivation can be found in the RFC, but here's a brief summary. `FromReflect` is a very powerful and important trait within the reflection API. It allows Dynamic types (e.g., `DynamicList`, etc.) to be formed into Real ones (e.g., `Vec<i32>`, etc.). This mainly comes into play concerning deserialization, where the reflection deserializers both return a `Box<dyn Reflect>` that almost always contain one of these Dynamic representations of a Real type. To convert this to our Real type, we need to use `FromReflect`. It also sneaks up in other ways. For example, it's a required bound for `T` in `Vec<T>` so that `Vec<T>` as a whole can be made `FromReflect`. It's also required by all fields of an enum as it's used as part of the `Reflect::apply` implementation. So in other words, much like `GetTypeRegistration` and `Typed`, it is very much a core reflection trait. The problem is that it is not currently treated like a core trait and is not automatically derived alongside `Reflect`. This makes using it a bit cumbersome and easy to forget. ## Solution Automatically derive `FromReflect` when deriving `Reflect`. Users can then choose to opt-out if needed using the `#[reflect(from_reflect = false)]` attribute. ```rust #[derive(Reflect)] struct Foo; #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect(from_reflect = false)] struct Bar; fn test<T: FromReflect>(value: T) {} test(Foo); // <-- OK test(Bar); // <-- Panic! Bar does not implement trait `FromReflect` ``` #### `ReflectFromReflect` This PR also automatically adds the `ReflectFromReflect` (introduced in #6245) registration to the derived `GetTypeRegistration` impl— if the type hasn't opted out of `FromReflect` of course. <details> <summary><h4>Improved Deserialization</h4></summary> > **Warning** > This section includes changes that have since been descoped from this PR. They will likely be implemented again in a followup PR. I am mainly leaving these details in for archival purposes, as well as for reference when implementing this logic again. And since we can do all the above, we might as well improve deserialization. We can now choose to deserialize into a Dynamic type or automatically convert it using `FromReflect` under the hood. `[Un]TypedReflectDeserializer::new` will now perform the conversion and return the `Box`'d Real type. `[Un]TypedReflectDeserializer::new_dynamic` will work like what we have now and simply return the `Box`'d Dynamic type. ```rust // Returns the Real type let reflect_deserializer = UntypedReflectDeserializer::new(®istry); let mut deserializer = ron:🇩🇪:Deserializer::from_str(input)?; let output: SomeStruct = reflect_deserializer.deserialize(&mut deserializer)?.take()?; // Returns the Dynamic type let reflect_deserializer = UntypedReflectDeserializer::new_dynamic(®istry); let mut deserializer = ron:🇩🇪:Deserializer::from_str(input)?; let output: DynamicStruct = reflect_deserializer.deserialize(&mut deserializer)?.take()?; ``` </details> --- ## Changelog * `FromReflect` is now automatically derived within the `Reflect` derive macro * This includes auto-registering `ReflectFromReflect` in the derived `GetTypeRegistration` impl * ~~Renamed `TypedReflectDeserializer::new` and `UntypedReflectDeserializer::new` to `TypedReflectDeserializer::new_dynamic` and `UntypedReflectDeserializer::new_dynamic`, respectively~~ **Descoped** * ~~Changed `TypedReflectDeserializer::new` and `UntypedReflectDeserializer::new` to automatically convert the deserialized output using `FromReflect`~~ **Descoped** ## Migration Guide * `FromReflect` is now automatically derived within the `Reflect` derive macro. Items with both derives will need to remove the `FromReflect` one. ```rust // OLD #[derive(Reflect, FromReflect)] struct Foo; // NEW #[derive(Reflect)] struct Foo; ``` If using a manual implementation of `FromReflect` and the `Reflect` derive, users will need to opt-out of the automatic implementation. ```rust // OLD #[derive(Reflect)] struct Foo; impl FromReflect for Foo {/* ... */} // NEW #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect(from_reflect = false)] struct Foo; impl FromReflect for Foo {/* ... */} ``` <details> <summary><h4>Removed Migrations</h4></summary> > **Warning** > This section includes changes that have since been descoped from this PR. They will likely be implemented again in a followup PR. I am mainly leaving these details in for archival purposes, as well as for reference when implementing this logic again. * The reflect deserializers now perform a `FromReflect` conversion internally. The expected output of `TypedReflectDeserializer::new` and `UntypedReflectDeserializer::new` is no longer a Dynamic (e.g., `DynamicList`), but its Real counterpart (e.g., `Vec<i32>`). ```rust let reflect_deserializer = UntypedReflectDeserializer::new_dynamic(®istry); let mut deserializer = ron:🇩🇪:Deserializer::from_str(input)?; // OLD let output: DynamicStruct = reflect_deserializer.deserialize(&mut deserializer)?.take()?; // NEW let output: SomeStruct = reflect_deserializer.deserialize(&mut deserializer)?.take()?; ``` Alternatively, if this behavior isn't desired, use the `TypedReflectDeserializer::new_dynamic` and `UntypedReflectDeserializer::new_dynamic` methods instead: ```rust // OLD let reflect_deserializer = UntypedReflectDeserializer::new(®istry); // NEW let reflect_deserializer = UntypedReflectDeserializer::new_dynamic(®istry); ``` </details> --------- Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com> |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
75130bd5ec
|
bevy_reflect: Better proxies (#6971)
# Objective > This PR is based on discussion from #6601 The Dynamic types (e.g. `DynamicStruct`, `DynamicList`, etc.) act as both: 1. Dynamic containers which may hold any arbitrary data 2. Proxy types which may represent any other type Currently, the only way we can represent the proxy-ness of a Dynamic is by giving it a name. ```rust // This is just a dynamic container let mut data = DynamicStruct::default(); // This is a "proxy" data.set_name(std::any::type_name::<Foo>()); ``` This type name is the only way we check that the given Dynamic is a proxy of some other type. When we need to "assert the type" of a `dyn Reflect`, we call `Reflect::type_name` on it. However, because we're only using a string to denote the type, we run into a few gotchas and limitations. For example, hashing a Dynamic proxy may work differently than the type it proxies: ```rust #[derive(Reflect, Hash)] #[reflect(Hash)] struct Foo(i32); let concrete = Foo(123); let dynamic = concrete.clone_dynamic(); let concrete_hash = concrete.reflect_hash(); let dynamic_hash = dynamic.reflect_hash(); // The hashes are not equal because `concrete` uses its own `Hash` impl // while `dynamic` uses a reflection-based hashing algorithm assert_ne!(concrete_hash, dynamic_hash); ``` Because the Dynamic proxy only knows about the name of the type, it's unaware of any other information about it. This means it also differs on `Reflect::reflect_partial_eq`, and may include ignored or skipped fields in places the concrete type wouldn't. ## Solution Rather than having Dynamics pass along just the type name of proxied types, we can instead have them pass around the `TypeInfo`. Now all Dynamic types contain an `Option<&'static TypeInfo>` rather than a `String`: ```diff pub struct DynamicTupleStruct { - type_name: String, + represented_type: Option<&'static TypeInfo>, fields: Vec<Box<dyn Reflect>>, } ``` By changing `Reflect::get_type_info` to `Reflect::represented_type_info`, hopefully we make this behavior a little clearer. And to account for `None` values on these dynamic types, `Reflect::represented_type_info` now returns `Option<&'static TypeInfo>`. ```rust let mut data = DynamicTupleStruct::default(); // Not proxying any specific type assert!(dyn_tuple_struct.represented_type_info().is_none()); let type_info = <Foo as Typed>::type_info(); dyn_tuple_struct.set_represented_type(Some(type_info)); // Alternatively: // let dyn_tuple_struct = foo.clone_dynamic(); // Now we're proxying `Foo` assert!(dyn_tuple_struct.represented_type_info().is_some()); ``` This means that we can have full access to all the static type information for the proxied type. Future work would include transitioning more static type information (trait impls, attributes, etc.) over to the `TypeInfo` so it can actually be utilized by Dynamic proxies. ### Alternatives & Rationale > **Note** > These alternatives were written when this PR was first made using a `Proxy` trait. This trait has since been removed. <details> <summary>View</summary> #### Alternative: The `Proxy<T>` Approach I had considered adding something like a `Proxy<T>` type where `T` would be the Dynamic and would contain the proxied type information. This was nice in that it allows us to explicitly determine whether something is a proxy or not at a type level. `Proxy<DynamicStruct>` proxies a struct. Makes sense. The reason I didn't go with this approach is because (1) tuples, (2) complexity, and (3) `PartialReflect`. The `DynamicTuple` struct allows us to represent tuples at runtime. It also allows us to do something you normally can't with tuples: add new fields. Because of this, adding a field immediately invalidates the proxy (e.g. our info for `(i32, i32)` doesn't apply to `(i32, i32, NewField)`). By going with this PR's approach, we can just remove the type info on `DynamicTuple` when that happens. However, with the `Proxy<T>` approach, it becomes difficult to represent this behavior— we'd have to completely control how we access data for `T` for each `T`. Secondly, it introduces some added complexities (aside from the manual impls for each `T`). Does `Proxy<T>` impl `Reflect`? Likely yes, if we want to represent it as `dyn Reflect`. What `TypeInfo` do we give it? How would we forward reflection methods to the inner type (remember, we don't have specialization)? How do we separate this from Dynamic types? And finally, how do all this in a way that's both logical and intuitive for users? Lastly, introducing a `Proxy` trait rather than a `Proxy<T>` struct is actually more inline with the [Unique Reflect RFC](https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/pull/56). In a way, the `Proxy` trait is really one part of the `PartialReflect` trait introduced in that RFC (it's technically not in that RFC but it fits well with it), where the `PartialReflect` serves as a way for proxies to work _like_ concrete types without having full access to everything a concrete `Reflect` type can do. This would help bridge the gap between the current state of the crate and the implementation of that RFC. All that said, this is still a viable solution. If the community believes this is the better path forward, then we can do that instead. These were just my reasons for not initially going with it in this PR. #### Alternative: The Type Registry Approach The `Proxy` trait is great and all, but how does it solve the original problem? Well, it doesn't— yet! The goal would be to start moving information from the derive macro and its attributes to the generated `TypeInfo` since these are known statically and shouldn't change. For example, adding `ignored: bool` to `[Un]NamedField` or a list of impls. However, there is another way of storing this information. This is, of course, one of the uses of the `TypeRegistry`. If we're worried about Dynamic proxies not aligning with their concrete counterparts, we could move more type information to the registry and require its usage. For example, we could replace `Reflect::reflect_hash(&self)` with `Reflect::reflect_hash(&self, registry: &TypeRegistry)`. That's not the _worst_ thing in the world, but it is an ergonomics loss. Additionally, other attributes may have their own requirements, further restricting what's possible without the registry. The `Reflect::apply` method will require the registry as well now. Why? Well because the `map_apply` function used for the `Reflect::apply` impls on `Map` types depends on `Map::insert_boxed`, which (at least for `DynamicMap`) requires `Reflect::reflect_hash`. The same would apply when adding support for reflection-based diffing, which will require `Reflect::reflect_partial_eq`. Again, this is a totally viable alternative. I just chose not to go with it for the reasons above. If we want to go with it, then we can close this PR and we can pursue this alternative instead. #### Downsides Just to highlight a quick potential downside (likely needs more investigation): retrieving the `TypeInfo` requires acquiring a lock on the `GenericTypeInfoCell` used by the `Typed` impls for generic types (non-generic types use a `OnceBox which should be faster). I am not sure how much of a performance hit that is and will need to run some benchmarks to compare against. </details> ### Open Questions 1. Should we use `Cow<'static, TypeInfo>` instead? I think that might be easier for modding? Perhaps, in that case, we need to update `Typed::type_info` and friends as well? 2. Are the alternatives better than the approach this PR takes? Are there other alternatives? --- ## Changelog ### Changed - `Reflect::get_type_info` has been renamed to `Reflect::represented_type_info` - This method now returns `Option<&'static TypeInfo>` rather than just `&'static TypeInfo` ### Added - Added `Reflect::is_dynamic` method to indicate when a type is dynamic - Added a `set_represented_type` method on all dynamic types ### Removed - Removed `TypeInfo::Dynamic` (use `Reflect::is_dynamic` instead) - Removed `Typed` impls for all dynamic types ## Migration Guide - The Dynamic types no longer take a string type name. Instead, they require a static reference to `TypeInfo`: ```rust #[derive(Reflect)] struct MyTupleStruct(f32, f32); let mut dyn_tuple_struct = DynamicTupleStruct::default(); dyn_tuple_struct.insert(1.23_f32); dyn_tuple_struct.insert(3.21_f32); // BEFORE: let type_name = std::any::type_name::<MyTupleStruct>(); dyn_tuple_struct.set_name(type_name); // AFTER: let type_info = <MyTupleStruct as Typed>::type_info(); dyn_tuple_struct.set_represented_type(Some(type_info)); ``` - `Reflect::get_type_info` has been renamed to `Reflect::represented_type_info` and now also returns an `Option<&'static TypeInfo>` (instead of just `&'static TypeInfo`): ```rust // BEFORE: let info: &'static TypeInfo = value.get_type_info(); // AFTER: let info: &'static TypeInfo = value.represented_type_info().unwrap(); ``` - `TypeInfo::Dynamic` and `DynamicInfo` has been removed. Use `Reflect::is_dynamic` instead: ```rust // BEFORE: if matches!(value.get_type_info(), TypeInfo::Dynamic) { // ... } // AFTER: if value.is_dynamic() { // ... } ``` --------- Co-authored-by: radiish <cb.setho@gmail.com> |
||
|
Maksymilian Mozolewski
|
ac1aebed5e |
Add reflect(skip_serializing) which retains reflection but disables automatic serialization (#5250)
# Objective - To address problems outlined in https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/5245 ## Solution - Introduce `reflect(skip_serializing)` on top of `reflect(ignore)` which disables automatic serialisation to scenes, but does not disable reflection of the field. --- ## Changelog - Adds: - `bevy_reflect::serde::type_data` module - `SerializationData` structure for describing which fields are to be/not to be ignored, automatically registers as type_data for struct-based types - the `skip_serialization` flag for `#[reflect(...)]` - Removes: - ability to ignore Enum variants in serialization, since that didn't work anyway ## Migration Guide - Change `#[reflect(ignore)]` to `#[reflect(skip_serializing)]` where disabling reflection is not the intended effect. - Remove ignore/skip attributes from enum variants as these won't do anything anymore |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
15826d6019 |
bevy_reflect: Reflect enums (#4761)
# Objective
> This is a revival of #1347. Credit for the original PR should go to @Davier.
Currently, enums are treated as `ReflectRef::Value` types by `bevy_reflect`. Obviously, there needs to be better a better representation for enums using the reflection API.
## Solution
Based on prior work from @Davier, an `Enum` trait has been added as well as the ability to automatically implement it via the `Reflect` derive macro. This allows enums to be expressed dynamically:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
enum Foo {
A,
B(usize),
C { value: f32 },
}
let mut foo = Foo::B(123);
assert_eq!("B", foo.variant_name());
assert_eq!(1, foo.field_len());
let new_value = DynamicEnum::from(Foo::C { value: 1.23 });
foo.apply(&new_value);
assert_eq!(Foo::C{value: 1.23}, foo);
```
### Features
#### Derive Macro
Use the `#[derive(Reflect)]` macro to automatically implement the `Enum` trait for enum definitions. Optionally, you can use `#[reflect(ignore)]` with both variants and variant fields, just like you can with structs. These ignored items will not be considered as part of the reflection and cannot be accessed via reflection.
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
enum TestEnum {
A,
// Uncomment to ignore all of `B`
// #[reflect(ignore)]
B(usize),
C {
// Uncomment to ignore only field `foo` of `C`
// #[reflect(ignore)]
foo: f32,
bar: bool,
},
}
```
#### Dynamic Enums
Enums may be created/represented dynamically via the `DynamicEnum` struct. The main purpose of this struct is to allow enums to be deserialized into a partial state and to allow dynamic patching. In order to ensure conversion from a `DynamicEnum` to a concrete enum type goes smoothly, be sure to add `FromReflect` to your derive macro.
```rust
let mut value = TestEnum::A;
// Create from a concrete instance
let dyn_enum = DynamicEnum::from(TestEnum::B(123));
value.apply(&dyn_enum);
assert_eq!(TestEnum::B(123), value);
// Create a purely dynamic instance
let dyn_enum = DynamicEnum::new("TestEnum", "A", ());
value.apply(&dyn_enum);
assert_eq!(TestEnum::A, value);
```
#### Variants
An enum value is always represented as one of its variants— never the enum in its entirety.
```rust
let value = TestEnum::A;
assert_eq!("A", value.variant_name());
// Since we are using the `A` variant, we cannot also be the `B` variant
assert_ne!("B", value.variant_name());
```
All variant types are representable within the `Enum` trait: unit, struct, and tuple.
You can get the current type like:
```rust
match value.variant_type() {
VariantType::Unit => println!("A unit variant!"),
VariantType::Struct => println!("A struct variant!"),
VariantType::Tuple => println!("A tuple variant!"),
}
```
> Notice that they don't contain any values representing the fields. These are purely tags.
If a variant has them, you can access the fields as well:
```rust
let mut value = TestEnum::C {
foo: 1.23,
bar: false
};
// Read/write specific fields
*value.field_mut("bar").unwrap() = true;
// Iterate over the entire collection of fields
for field in value.iter_fields() {
println!("{} = {:?}", field.name(), field.value());
}
```
#### Variant Swapping
It might seem odd to group all variant types under a single trait (why allow `iter_fields` on a unit variant?), but the reason this was done ~~is to easily allow *variant swapping*.~~ As I was recently drafting up the **Design Decisions** section, I discovered that other solutions could have been made to work with variant swapping. So while there are reasons to keep the all-in-one approach, variant swapping is _not_ one of them.
```rust
let mut value: Box<dyn Enum> = Box::new(TestEnum::A);
value.set(Box::new(TestEnum::B(123))).unwrap();
```
#### Serialization
Enums can be serialized and deserialized via reflection without needing to implement `Serialize` or `Deserialize` themselves (which can save thousands of lines of generated code). Below are the ways an enum can be serialized.
> Note, like the rest of reflection-based serialization, the order of the keys in these representations is important!
##### Unit
```json
{
"type": "my_crate::TestEnum",
"enum": {
"variant": "A"
}
}
```
##### Tuple
```json
{
"type": "my_crate::TestEnum",
"enum": {
"variant": "B",
"tuple": [
{
"type": "usize",
"value": 123
}
]
}
}
```
<details>
<summary>Effects on Option</summary>
This ends up making `Option` look a little ugly:
```json
{
"type": "core::option::Option<usize>",
"enum": {
"variant": "Some",
"tuple": [
{
"type": "usize",
"value": 123
}
]
}
}
```
</details>
##### Struct
```json
{
"type": "my_crate::TestEnum",
"enum": {
"variant": "C",
"struct": {
"foo": {
"type": "f32",
"value": 1.23
},
"bar": {
"type": "bool",
"value": false
}
}
}
}
```
## Design Decisions
<details>
<summary><strong>View Section</strong></summary>
This section is here to provide some context for why certain decisions were made for this PR, alternatives that could have been used instead, and what could be improved upon in the future.
### Variant Representation
One of the biggest decisions was to decide on how to represent variants. The current design uses a "all-in-one" design where unit, tuple, and struct variants are all simultaneously represented by the `Enum` trait. This is not the only way it could have been done, though.
#### Alternatives
##### 1. Variant Traits
One way of representing variants would be to define traits for each variant, implementing them whenever an enum featured at least one instance of them. This would allow us to define variants like:
```rust
pub trait Enum: Reflect {
fn variant(&self) -> Variant;
}
pub enum Variant<'a> {
Unit,
Tuple(&'a dyn TupleVariant),
Struct(&'a dyn StructVariant),
}
pub trait TupleVariant {
fn field_len(&self) -> usize;
// ...
}
```
And then do things like:
```rust
fn get_tuple_len(foo: &dyn Enum) -> usize {
match foo.variant() {
Variant::Tuple(tuple) => tuple.field_len(),
_ => panic!("not a tuple variant!")
}
}
```
The reason this PR does not go with this approach is because of the fact that variants are not separate types. In other words, we cannot implement traits on specific variants— these cover the *entire* enum. This means we offer an easy footgun:
```rust
let foo: Option<i32> = None;
let my_enum = Box::new(foo) as Box<dyn TupleVariant>;
```
Here, `my_enum` contains `foo`, which is a unit variant. However, since we need to implement `TupleVariant` for `Option` as a whole, it's possible to perform such a cast. This is obviously wrong, but could easily go unnoticed. So unfortunately, this makes it not a good candidate for representing variants.
##### 2. Variant Structs
To get around the issue of traits necessarily needing to apply to both the enum and its variants, we could instead use structs that are created on a per-variant basis. This was also considered but was ultimately [[removed](
|