c574179266
15 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Joona Aalto
|
38c3423693
|
Event Split: Event, EntityEvent, and BufferedEvent (#19647)
# 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. |
||
|
Joona Aalto
|
e5dc177b4b
|
Rename Trigger to On (#19596)
# 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.
|
||
|
Eagster
|
064e5e48b4
|
Remove entity placeholder from observers (#19440)
# Objective `Entity::PLACEHOLDER` acts as a magic number that will *probably* never really exist, but it certainly could. And, `Entity` has a niche, so the only reason to use `PLACEHOLDER` is as an alternative to `MaybeUninit` that trades safety risks for logic risks. As a result, bevy has generally advised against using `PLACEHOLDER`, but we still use if for a lot internally. This pr starts removing internal uses of it, starting from observers. ## Solution Change all trigger target related types from `Entity` to `Option<Entity>` Small migration guide to come. ## Testing CI ## Future Work This turned a lot of code from ```rust trigger.target() ``` to ```rust trigger.target().unwrap() ``` The extra panic is no worse than before; it's just earlier than panicking after passing the placeholder to something else. But this is kinda annoying. I would like to add a `TriggerMode` or something to `Event` that would restrict what kinds of targets can be used for that event. Many events like `Removed` etc, are always triggered with a target. We can make those have a way to assume Some, etc. But I wanted to save that for a future pr. |
||
|
François Mockers
|
8a223be651
|
Enable state scoped entities by default (#19354)
# Objective - Enable state scoped entities by default - Provide a way to disable it when needed --------- Co-authored-by: Ben Frankel <ben.frankel7@gmail.com> |
||
|
Emerson Coskey
|
7ab00ca185
|
Split Camera.hdr out into a new component (#18873)
# Objective
- Simplify `Camera` initialization
- allow effects to require HDR
## Solution
- Split out `Camera.hdr` into a marker `Hdr` component
## Testing
- ran `bloom_3d` example
---
## Showcase
```rs
// before
commands.spawn((
Camera3d
Camera {
hdr: true
..Default::default()
}
))
// after
commands.spawn((Camera3d, Hdr));
// other rendering components can require that the camera enables hdr!
// currently implemented for Bloom, AutoExposure, and Atmosphere.
#[require(Hdr)]
pub struct Bloom;
```
|
||
|
mgi388
|
7a1fcb7fe7
|
Rename StateScoped to DespawnOnExitState and add DespawnOnEnterState (#18818)
# Objective - Alternative to and builds on top of #16284. - Fixes #15849. ## Solution - Rename component `StateScoped` to `DespawnOnExitState`. - Rename system `clear_state_scoped_entities` to `despawn_entities_on_exit_state`. - Add `DespawnOnEnterState` and `despawn_entities_on_enter_state` which is the `OnEnter` equivalent. > [!NOTE] > Compared to #16284, the main change is that I did the rename in such a way as to keep the terms `OnExit` and `OnEnter` together. In my own game, I was adding `VisibleOnEnterState` and `HiddenOnExitState` and when naming those, I kept the `OnExit` and `OnEnter` together. When I checked #16284 it stood out to me that the naming was a bit awkward. Putting the `State` in the middle and breaking up `OnEnter` and `OnExit` also breaks searching for those terms. ## Open questions 1. Should we split `enable_state_scoped_entities` into two functions, one for the `OnEnter` and one for the `OnExit`? I personally have zero need thus far for the `OnEnter` version, so I'd be interested in not having this enabled unless I ask for it. 2. If yes to 1., should we follow my lead in my `Visibility` state components (see below) and name these `app.enable_despawn_entities_on_enter_state()` and `app.enable_despawn_entities_on_exit_state()`, which IMO says what it does on the tin? ## Testing Ran all changed examples. ## Side note: `VisibleOnEnterState` and `HiddenOnExitState` For reference to anyone else and to help with the open questions, I'm including the code I wrote for controlling entity visibility when a state is entered/exited. <details> <summary>visibility.rs</summary> ```rust use bevy_app::prelude::*; use bevy_ecs::prelude::*; use bevy_reflect::prelude::*; use bevy_render::prelude::*; use bevy_state::{prelude::*, state::StateTransitionSteps}; use tracing::*; pub trait AppExtStates { fn enable_visible_entities_on_enter_state<S: States>(&mut self) -> &mut Self; fn enable_hidden_entities_on_exit_state<S: States>(&mut self) -> &mut Self; } impl AppExtStates for App { fn enable_visible_entities_on_enter_state<S: States>(&mut self) -> &mut Self { self.main_mut() .enable_visible_entities_on_enter_state::<S>(); self } fn enable_hidden_entities_on_exit_state<S: States>(&mut self) -> &mut Self { self.main_mut().enable_hidden_entities_on_exit_state::<S>(); self } } impl AppExtStates for SubApp { fn enable_visible_entities_on_enter_state<S: States>(&mut self) -> &mut Self { if !self .world() .contains_resource::<Events<StateTransitionEvent<S>>>() { let name = core::any::type_name::<S>(); warn!("Visible entities on enter state are enabled for state `{}`, but the state isn't installed in the app!", name); } // We work with [`StateTransition`] in set // [`StateTransitionSteps::ExitSchedules`] as opposed to [`OnExit`], // because [`OnExit`] only runs for one specific variant of the state. self.add_systems( StateTransition, update_to_visible_on_enter_state::<S>.in_set(StateTransitionSteps::ExitSchedules), ) } fn enable_hidden_entities_on_exit_state<S: States>(&mut self) -> &mut Self { if !self .world() .contains_resource::<Events<StateTransitionEvent<S>>>() { let name = core::any::type_name::<S>(); warn!("Hidden entities on exit state are enabled for state `{}`, but the state isn't installed in the app!", name); } // We work with [`StateTransition`] in set // [`StateTransitionSteps::ExitSchedules`] as opposed to [`OnExit`], // because [`OnExit`] only runs for one specific variant of the state. self.add_systems( StateTransition, update_to_hidden_on_exit_state::<S>.in_set(StateTransitionSteps::ExitSchedules), ) } } #[derive(Clone, Component, Debug, Reflect)] #[reflect(Component, Debug)] pub struct VisibleOnEnterState<S: States>(pub S); #[derive(Clone, Component, Debug, Reflect)] #[reflect(Component, Debug)] pub struct HiddenOnExitState<S: States>(pub S); /// Makes entities marked with [`VisibleOnEnterState<S>`] visible when the state /// `S` is entered. pub fn update_to_visible_on_enter_state<S: States>( mut transitions: EventReader<StateTransitionEvent<S>>, mut query: Query<(&VisibleOnEnterState<S>, &mut Visibility)>, ) { // We use the latest event, because state machine internals generate at most // 1 transition event (per type) each frame. No event means no change // happened and we skip iterating all entities. let Some(transition) = transitions.read().last() else { return; }; if transition.entered == transition.exited { return; } let Some(entered) = &transition.entered else { return; }; for (binding, mut visibility) in query.iter_mut() { if binding.0 == *entered { visibility.set_if_neq(Visibility::Visible); } } } /// Makes entities marked with [`HiddenOnExitState<S>`] invisible when the state /// `S` is exited. pub fn update_to_hidden_on_exit_state<S: States>( mut transitions: EventReader<StateTransitionEvent<S>>, mut query: Query<(&HiddenOnExitState<S>, &mut Visibility)>, ) { // We use the latest event, because state machine internals generate at most // 1 transition event (per type) each frame. No event means no change // happened and we skip iterating all entities. let Some(transition) = transitions.read().last() else { return; }; if transition.entered == transition.exited { return; } let Some(exited) = &transition.exited else { return; }; for (binding, mut visibility) in query.iter_mut() { if binding.0 == *exited { visibility.set_if_neq(Visibility::Hidden); } } } ``` </details> --------- Co-authored-by: Benjamin Brienen <Benjamin.Brienen@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: Ben Frankel <ben.frankel7@gmail.com> |
||
|
François Mockers
|
4b457cc2ce
|
Revert "don't use bevy_pbr for base bevy_gizmos plugin" (#18327)
# Objective - #17581 broke gizmos - Fixes #18325 ## Solution - Revert #17581 - Add gizmos to testbed ## Testing - Run any example with gizmos, it renders correctly |
||
|
Rob Parrett
|
0cb3eaef67
|
Fix validation errors in Fox.glb (#17801)
# Objective Fix gltf validation errors in `Fox.glb`. Inspired by #8099, but that issue doesn't appear to describe a real bug to fix, as far as I can tell. ## Solution Use the latest version of the Fox from [glTF-Sample-Assets](https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF-Sample-Assets/blob/main/Models/Fox/glTF-Binary/Fox.glb). ## Testing Dropped both versions in https://github.khronos.org/glTF-Validator/ `cargo run --example animated_mesh` seems to still look fine. Before: ``` The asset contains errors. "numErrors": 126, "numWarnings": 4184, ``` After: ``` The asset is valid. "numErrors": 0, "numWarnings": 0, ``` ## Discussion The 3d testbed was panicking with ``` thread 'main' panicked at examples/testbed/3d.rs:288:60: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: QueryDoesNotMatch(35v1 with components Transform, GlobalTransform, Visibility, InheritedVisibility, ViewVisibility, ChildOf, Children, Name) ``` Which is bizarre. I think this might be related to #17720, or maybe the structure of the gltf changed. I fixed it by using updating the testbed to use a more robust method of finding the correct entity as is done in `animated_mesh`. |
||
|
François Mockers
|
7d141829be
|
run example in CI on windows using static dxc (#17783)
# Objective - Run more things on windows ## Solution - With the update of wgpu and the statically linked dxc, examples now run on windows in CI |
||
|
François Mockers
|
e57f73207e
|
Smarter testbeds (#17573)
# Objective - Improve CI when testing rendering by having smarter testbeds ## Solution - CI testing no longer need a config file and will run with a default config if not found - It is now possible to give a name to a screenshot instead of just a frame number - 2d and 3d testbeds are now driven from code - a new system in testbed will watch for state changed - on state changed, trigger a screenshot 100 frames after (so that the scene has time to render) with the name of the scene - when the screenshot is taken (`Captured` component has been removed), switch scene - this means less setup to run a testbed (no need for a config file), screenshots have better names, and it's faster as we don't wait 100 frames for the screenshot to be taken ## Testing - `cargo run --example testbed_2d --features bevy_ci_testing` |
||
|
Alice Cecile
|
6fd6ce1367
|
Feature flag testbed_3d code correctly (#16866)
# Objective Rust-Analyzer was reporting problems with dead code in the 3d testbed scene. ## Solution These scenes don't work in CI on the Windows runner (because they're too weak). Mirror the feature flags from above onto the offending modules. ## Testing RA no longer complains. |
||
|
Aevyrie
|
61b98ec80f
|
Rename trigger.entity() to trigger.target() (#16716)
# Objective - A `Trigger` has multiple associated `Entity`s - the entity observing the event, and the entity that was targeted by the event. - The field `entity: Entity` encodes no semantic information about what the entity is used for, you can already tell that it's an `Entity` by the type signature! ## Solution - Rename `trigger.entity()` to `trigger.target()` --- ## Changelog - `Trigger`s are associated with multiple entities. `Trigger::entity()` has been renamed to `Trigger::target()` to reflect the semantics of the entity being returned. ## Migration Guide - Rename `Trigger::entity()` to `Trigger::target()`. - Rename `ObserverTrigger::entity` to `ObserverTrigger::target` |
||
|
François Mockers
|
fcfb685821
|
enable_state_scoped_entities() as a derive attribute (#16180)
# Objective - I got tired of calling `enable_state_scoped_entities`, and though it would make more sense to define that at the place where the state is defined ## Solution - add a derive attribute `#[states(scoped_entities)]` when derive `States` or `SubStates` that enables it automatically when adding the state ## Testing - Ran the examples using it, they still work |
||
|
François Mockers
|
ec268420f7
|
Check examples screenshots on windows (#16010)
# Objective - Checks screenshots on Windows - Progress towards #15918 ## Solution - Checks screenshots on Windows - Also disable the helmet gltf scene in windows ci as it doesn't work |
||
|
François Mockers
|
74dedb2841
|
Testbed for 3d (#15993)
# Objective - Progress towards #15918 - Add tests for 3d ## Solution - Add tests that cover lights, bloom, gltf and animation - Removed examples `contributors` and `load_gltf` as they don't contribute additional checks to CI ## Testing - `CI_TESTING_CONFIG=.github/example-run/testbed_3d.ron cargo run --example testbed_3d --features "bevy_ci_testing"` |