c12670b0be
6 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Lucas Franca
|
78d5c50b50
|
Add PartialEq and Hash reflections for AnimationNodeIndex (#18718)
# Objective Fixes #18701 ## Solution Add reflection of `PartialEq` and `Hash` to `AnimationNodeIndex` ## Testing Added a new `#[test]` with the minimal reproduction posted on #18701. |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
f5210c54d2
|
bevy_reflect: Reflection-based cloning (#13432)
# Objective Using `Reflect::clone_value` can be somewhat confusing to those unfamiliar with how Bevy's reflection crate works. For example take the following code: ```rust let value: usize = 123; let clone: Box<dyn Reflect> = value.clone_value(); ``` What can we expect to be the underlying type of `clone`? If you guessed `usize`, then you're correct! Let's try another: ```rust #[derive(Reflect, Clone)] struct Foo(usize); let value: Foo = Foo(123); let clone: Box<dyn Reflect> = value.clone_value(); ``` What about this code? What is the underlying type of `clone`? If you guessed `Foo`, unfortunately you'd be wrong. It's actually `DynamicStruct`. It's not obvious that the generated `Reflect` impl actually calls `Struct::clone_dynamic` under the hood, which always returns `DynamicStruct`. There are already some efforts to make this a bit more apparent to the end-user: #7207 changes the signature of `Reflect::clone_value` to instead return `Box<dyn PartialReflect>`, signaling that we're potentially returning a dynamic type. But why _can't_ we return `Foo`? `Foo` can obviously be cloned— in fact, we already derived `Clone` on it. But even without the derive, this seems like something `Reflect` should be able to handle. Almost all types that implement `Reflect` either contain no data (trivially clonable), they contain a `#[reflect_value]` type (which, by definition, must implement `Clone`), or they contain another `Reflect` type (which recursively fall into one of these three categories). This PR aims to enable true reflection-based cloning where you get back exactly the type that you think you do. ## Solution Add a `Reflect::reflect_clone` method which returns `Result<Box<dyn Reflect>, ReflectCloneError>`, where the `Box<dyn Reflect>` is guaranteed to be the same type as `Self`. ```rust #[derive(Reflect)] struct Foo(usize); let value: Foo = Foo(123); let clone: Box<dyn Reflect> = value.reflect_clone().unwrap(); assert!(clone.is::<Foo>()); ``` Notice that we didn't even need to derive `Clone` for this to work: it's entirely powered via reflection! Under the hood, the macro generates something like this: ```rust fn reflect_clone(&self) -> Result<Box<dyn Reflect>, ReflectCloneError> { Ok(Box::new(Self { // The `reflect_clone` impl for `usize` just makes use of its `Clone` impl 0: Reflect::reflect_clone(&self.0)?.take().map_err(/* ... */)?, })) } ``` If we did derive `Clone`, we can tell `Reflect` to rely on that instead: ```rust #[derive(Reflect, Clone)] #[reflect(Clone)] struct Foo(usize); ``` <details> <summary>Generated Code</summary> ```rust fn reflect_clone(&self) -> Result<Box<dyn Reflect>, ReflectCloneError> { Ok(Box::new(Clone::clone(self))) } ``` </details> Or, we can specify our own cloning function: ```rust #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect(Clone(incremental_clone))] struct Foo(usize); fn incremental_clone(value: &usize) -> usize { *value + 1 } ``` <details> <summary>Generated Code</summary> ```rust fn reflect_clone(&self) -> Result<Box<dyn Reflect>, ReflectCloneError> { Ok(Box::new(incremental_clone(self))) } ``` </details> Similarly, we can specify how fields should be cloned. This is important for fields that are `#[reflect(ignore)]`'d as we otherwise have no way to know how they should be cloned. ```rust #[derive(Reflect)] struct Foo { #[reflect(ignore, clone)] bar: usize, #[reflect(ignore, clone = "incremental_clone")] baz: usize, } fn incremental_clone(value: &usize) -> usize { *value + 1 } ``` <details> <summary>Generated Code</summary> ```rust fn reflect_clone(&self) -> Result<Box<dyn Reflect>, ReflectCloneError> { Ok(Box::new(Self { bar: Clone::clone(&self.bar), baz: incremental_clone(&self.baz), })) } ``` </details> If we don't supply a `clone` attribute for an ignored field, then the method will automatically return `Err(ReflectCloneError::FieldNotClonable {/* ... */})`. `Err` values "bubble up" to the caller. So if `Foo` contains `Bar` and the `reflect_clone` method for `Bar` returns `Err`, then the `reflect_clone` method for `Foo` also returns `Err`. ### Attribute Syntax You might have noticed the differing syntax between the container attribute and the field attribute. This was purely done for consistency with the current attributes. There are PRs aimed at improving this. #7317 aims at making the "special-cased" attributes more in line with the field attributes syntactically. And #9323 aims at moving away from the stringified paths in favor of just raw function paths. ### Compatibility with Unique Reflect This PR was designed with Unique Reflect (#7207) in mind. This method actually wouldn't change that much (if at all) under Unique Reflect. It would still exist on `Reflect` and it would still `Option<Box<dyn Reflect>>`. In fact, Unique Reflect would only _improve_ the user's understanding of what this method returns. We may consider moving what's currently `Reflect::clone_value` to `PartialReflect` and possibly renaming it to `partial_reflect_clone` or `clone_dynamic` to better indicate how it differs from `reflect_clone`. ## Testing You can test locally by running the following command: ``` cargo test --package bevy_reflect ``` --- ## Changelog - Added `Reflect::reflect_clone` method - Added `ReflectCloneError` error enum - Added `#[reflect(Clone)]` container attribute - Added `#[reflect(clone)]` field attribute |
||
|
raldone01
|
1b7db895b7
|
Harden proc macro path resolution and add integration tests. (#17330)
This pr uses the `extern crate self as` trick to make proc macros behave the same way inside and outside bevy. # Objective - Removes noise introduced by `crate as` in the whole bevy repo. - Fixes #17004. - Hardens proc macro path resolution. ## TODO - [x] `BevyManifest` needs cleanup. - [x] Cleanup remaining `crate as`. - [x] Add proper integration tests to the ci. ## Notes - `cargo-manifest-proc-macros` is written by me and based/inspired by the old `BevyManifest` implementation and [`bkchr/proc-macro-crate`](https://github.com/bkchr/proc-macro-crate). - What do you think about the new integration test machinery I added to the `ci`? More and better integration tests can be added at a later stage. The goal of these integration tests is to simulate an actual separate crate that uses bevy. Ideally they would lightly touch all bevy crates. ## Testing - Needs RA test - Needs testing from other users - Others need to run at least `cargo run -p ci integration-test` and verify that they work. --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
d70595b667
|
Add core and alloc over std Lints (#15281)
# Objective - Fixes #6370 - Closes #6581 ## Solution - Added the following lints to the workspace: - `std_instead_of_core` - `std_instead_of_alloc` - `alloc_instead_of_core` - Used `cargo +nightly fmt` with [item level use formatting](https://rust-lang.github.io/rustfmt/?version=v1.6.0&search=#Item%5C%3A) to split all `use` statements into single items. - Used `cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features --fix --allow-dirty` to _attempt_ to resolve the new linting issues, and intervened where the lint was unable to resolve the issue automatically (usually due to needing an `extern crate alloc;` statement in a crate root). - Manually removed certain uses of `std` where negative feature gating prevented `--all-features` from finding the offending uses. - Used `cargo +nightly fmt` with [crate level use formatting](https://rust-lang.github.io/rustfmt/?version=v1.6.0&search=#Crate%5C%3A) to re-merge all `use` statements matching Bevy's previous styling. - Manually fixed cases where the `fmt` tool could not re-merge `use` statements due to conditional compilation attributes. ## Testing - Ran CI locally ## Migration Guide The MSRV is now 1.81. Please update to this version or higher. ## Notes - This is a _massive_ change to try and push through, which is why I've outlined the semi-automatic steps I used to create this PR, in case this fails and someone else tries again in the future. - Making this change has no impact on user code, but does mean Bevy contributors will be warned to use `core` and `alloc` instead of `std` where possible. - This lint is a critical first step towards investigating `no_std` options for Bevy. --------- Co-authored-by: François Mockers <francois.mockers@vleue.com> |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
83356b12c9
|
bevy_reflect: Replace "value" terminology with "opaque" (#15240)
# Objective Currently, the term "value" in the context of reflection is a bit overloaded. For one, it can be used synonymously with "data" or "variable". An example sentence would be "this function takes a reflected value". However, it is also used to refer to reflected types which are `ReflectKind::Value`. These types are usually either primitives, opaque types, or types that don't fall into any other `ReflectKind` (or perhaps could, but don't due to some limitation/difficulty). An example sentence would be "this function takes a reflected value type". This makes it difficult to write good documentation or other learning material without causing some amount of confusion to readers. Ideally, we'd be able to move away from the `ReflectKind::Value` usage and come up with a better term. ## Solution This PR replaces the terminology of "value" with "opaque" across `bevy_reflect`. This includes in documentation, type names, variant names, and macros. The term "opaque" was chosen because that's essentially how the type is treated within the reflection API. In other words, its internal structure is hidden. All we can do is work with the type itself. ### Primitives While primitives are not technically opaque types, I think it's still clearer to refer to them as "opaque" rather than keep the confusing "value" terminology. We could consider adding another concept for primitives (e.g. `ReflectKind::Primitive`), but I'm not sure that provides a lot of benefit right now. In most circumstances, they'll be treated just like an opaque type. They would also likely use the same macro (or two copies of the same macro but with different names). ## Testing You can test locally by running: ``` cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features ``` --- ## Migration Guide The reflection concept of "value type" has been replaced with a clearer "opaque type". The following renames have been made to account for this: - `ReflectKind::Value` → `ReflectKind::Opaque` - `ReflectRef::Value` → `ReflectRef::Opaque` - `ReflectMut::Value` → `ReflectMut::Opaque` - `ReflectOwned::Value` → `ReflectOwned::Opaque` - `TypeInfo::Value` → `TypeInfo::Opaque` - `ValueInfo` → `OpaqueInfo` - `impl_reflect_value!` → `impl_reflect_opaque!` - `impl_from_reflect_value!` → `impl_from_reflect_opaque!` Additionally, declaring your own opaque types no longer uses `#[reflect_value]`. This attribute has been replaced by `#[reflect(opaque)]`: ```rust // BEFORE #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect_value(Default)] struct MyOpaqueType(u32); // AFTER #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect(opaque)] #[reflect(Default)] struct MyOpaqueType(u32); ``` Note that the order in which `#[reflect(opaque)]` appears does not matter. |
||
|
Patrick Walton
|
dfdf2b9ea4
|
Implement the AnimationGraph, allowing for multiple animations to be blended together. (#11989)
This is an implementation of RFC #51: https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/blob/main/rfcs/51-animation-composition.md Note that the implementation strategy is different from the one outlined in that RFC, because two-phase animation has now landed. # Objective Bevy needs animation blending. The RFC for this is [RFC 51]. ## Solution This is an implementation of the RFC. Note that the implementation strategy is different from the one outlined there, because two-phase animation has now landed. This is just a draft to get the conversation started. Currently we're missing a few things: - [x] A fully-fleshed-out mechanism for transitions - [x] A serialization format for `AnimationGraph`s - [x] Examples are broken, other than `animated_fox` - [x] Documentation --- ## Changelog ### Added * The `AnimationPlayer` has been reworked to support blending multiple animations together through an `AnimationGraph`, and as such will no longer function unless a `Handle<AnimationGraph>` has been added to the entity containing the player. See [RFC 51] for more details. * Transition functionality has moved from the `AnimationPlayer` to a new component, `AnimationTransitions`, which works in tandem with the `AnimationGraph`. ## Migration Guide * `AnimationPlayer`s can no longer play animations by themselves and need to be paired with a `Handle<AnimationGraph>`. Code that was using `AnimationPlayer` to play animations will need to create an `AnimationGraph` asset first, add a node for the clip (or clips) you want to play, and then supply the index of that node to the `AnimationPlayer`'s `play` method. * The `AnimationPlayer::play_with_transition()` method has been removed and replaced with the `AnimationTransitions` component. If you were previously using `AnimationPlayer::play_with_transition()`, add all animations that you were playing to the `AnimationGraph`, and create an `AnimationTransitions` component to manage the blending between them. [RFC 51]: https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/blob/main/rfcs/51-animation-composition.md --------- Co-authored-by: Rob Parrett <robparrett@gmail.com> |