# 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
Add documentation for the last two functions in bevy_picking that are
missing them.
## Solution
Add boilerplate "Constructs an X" to `PointerHits::new()` and
`HitData::new()`.
This form of no-information documentation of `new()` functions is used
in several places in the repo, and @alice-i-cecile agreed that this is a
reasonable approach - the params are already documented on the fields
within the struct definition.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jan Hohenheim <jan@hohenheim.ch>
# Objective
Fixes a part of #14274.
Bevy has an incredibly inconsistent naming convention for its system
sets, both internally and across the ecosystem.
<img alt="System sets in Bevy"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d16e2027-793f-4ba4-9cc9-e780b14a5a1b"
width="450" />
*Names of public system set types in Bevy*
Most Bevy types use a naming of `FooSystem` or just `Foo`, but there are
also a few `FooSystems` and `FooSet` types. In ecosystem crates on the
other hand, `FooSet` is perhaps the most commonly used name in general.
Conventions being so wildly inconsistent can make it harder for users to
pick names for their own types, to search for system sets on docs.rs, or
to even discern which types *are* system sets.
To reign in the inconsistency a bit and help unify the ecosystem, it
would be good to establish a common recommended naming convention for
system sets in Bevy itself, similar to how plugins are commonly suffixed
with `Plugin` (ex: `TimePlugin`). By adopting a consistent naming
convention in first-party Bevy, we can softly nudge ecosystem crates to
follow suit (for types where it makes sense to do so).
Choosing a naming convention is also relevant now, as the [`bevy_cli`
recently adopted
lints](https://github.com/TheBevyFlock/bevy_cli/pull/345) to enforce
naming for plugins and system sets, and the recommended naming used for
system sets is still a bit open.
## Which Name To Use?
Now the contentious part: what naming convention should we actually
adopt?
This was discussed on the Bevy Discord at the end of last year, starting
[here](<https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1310659954683936789>).
`FooSet` and `FooSystems` were the clear favorites, with `FooSet` very
narrowly winning an unofficial poll. However, it seems to me like the
consensus was broadly moving towards `FooSystems` at the end and after
the poll, with Cart
([source](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1311140204974706708))
and later Alice
([source](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/692572690833473578/1311092530732859533))
and also me being in favor of it.
Let's do a quick pros and cons list! Of course these are just what I
thought of, so take it with a grain of salt.
`FooSet`:
- Pro: Nice and short!
- Pro: Used by many ecosystem crates.
- Pro: The `Set` suffix comes directly from the trait name `SystemSet`.
- Pro: Pairs nicely with existing APIs like `in_set` and
`configure_sets`.
- Con: `Set` by itself doesn't actually indicate that it's related to
systems *at all*, apart from the implemented trait. A set of what?
- Con: Is `FooSet` a set of `Foo`s or a system set related to `Foo`? Ex:
`ContactSet`, `MeshSet`, `EnemySet`...
`FooSystems`:
- Pro: Very clearly indicates that the type represents a collection of
systems. The actual core concept, system(s), is in the name.
- Pro: Parallels nicely with `FooPlugins` for plugin groups.
- Pro: Low risk of conflicts with other names or misunderstandings about
what the type is.
- Pro: In most cases, reads *very* nicely and clearly. Ex:
`PhysicsSystems` and `AnimationSystems` as opposed to `PhysicsSet` and
`AnimationSet`.
- Pro: Easy to search for on docs.rs.
- Con: Usually results in longer names.
- Con: Not yet as widely used.
Really the big problem with `FooSet` is that it doesn't actually
describe what it is. It describes what *kind of thing* it is (a set of
something), but not *what it is a set of*, unless you know the type or
check its docs or implemented traits. `FooSystems` on the other hand is
much more self-descriptive in this regard, at the cost of being a bit
longer to type.
Ultimately, in some ways it comes down to preference and how you think
of system sets. Personally, I was originally in favor of `FooSet`, but
have been increasingly on the side of `FooSystems`, especially after
seeing what the new names would actually look like in Avian and now
Bevy. I prefer it because it usually reads better, is much more clearly
related to groups of systems than `FooSet`, and overall *feels* more
correct and natural to me in the long term.
For these reasons, and because Alice and Cart also seemed to share a
preference for it when it was previously being discussed, I propose that
we adopt a `FooSystems` naming convention where applicable.
## Solution
Rename Bevy's system set types to use a consistent `FooSet` naming where
applicable.
- `AccessibilitySystem` → `AccessibilitySystems`
- `GizmoRenderSystem` → `GizmoRenderSystems`
- `PickSet` → `PickingSystems`
- `RunFixedMainLoopSystem` → `RunFixedMainLoopSystems`
- `TransformSystem` → `TransformSystems`
- `RemoteSet` → `RemoteSystems`
- `RenderSet` → `RenderSystems`
- `SpriteSystem` → `SpriteSystems`
- `StateTransitionSteps` → `StateTransitionSystems`
- `RenderUiSystem` → `RenderUiSystems`
- `UiSystem` → `UiSystems`
- `Animation` → `AnimationSystems`
- `AssetEvents` → `AssetEventSystems`
- `TrackAssets` → `AssetTrackingSystems`
- `UpdateGizmoMeshes` → `GizmoMeshSystems`
- `InputSystem` → `InputSystems`
- `InputFocusSet` → `InputFocusSystems`
- `ExtractMaterialsSet` → `MaterialExtractionSystems`
- `ExtractMeshesSet` → `MeshExtractionSystems`
- `RumbleSystem` → `RumbleSystems`
- `CameraUpdateSystem` → `CameraUpdateSystems`
- `ExtractAssetsSet` → `AssetExtractionSystems`
- `Update2dText` → `Text2dUpdateSystems`
- `TimeSystem` → `TimeSystems`
- `AudioPlaySet` → `AudioPlaybackSystems`
- `SendEvents` → `EventSenderSystems`
- `EventUpdates` → `EventUpdateSystems`
A lot of the names got slightly longer, but they are also a lot more
consistent, and in my opinion the majority of them read much better. For
a few of the names I took the liberty of rewording things a bit;
definitely open to any further naming improvements.
There are still also cases where the `FooSystems` naming doesn't really
make sense, and those I left alone. This primarily includes system sets
like `Interned<dyn SystemSet>`, `EnterSchedules<S>`, `ExitSchedules<S>`,
or `TransitionSchedules<S>`, where the type has some special purpose and
semantics.
## Todo
- [x] Should I keep all the old names as deprecated type aliases? I can
do this, but to avoid wasting work I'd prefer to first reach consensus
on whether these renames are even desired.
- [x] Migration guide
- [x] Release notes
# Objective
- Fixes#18856.
## Solution
After PR #17633, `Camera::viewport_to_world` method corrects
`viewport_position` passed in that input so that it's offset by camera's
viewport. `Camera::viewport_to_world` is used by `make_ray` function
which in turn also offsets pointer position by viewport position, which
causes picking objects to be shifted by viewport position, and it wasn't
removed in the aforementioned PR. This second offsetting in `make_ray`
was removed.
## Testing
- I tested simple_picking example by applying some horizontal offset to
camera's viewport.
- I tested my application that displayed a single rectangle with picking
on two cameras arranged in a row. When using local bevy with this fix,
both cameras can be used for picking correctly.
- I modified split_screen example: I added observer to ground plane that
changes color on hover, and removed UI as it interfered with picking
both on master and my branch. On master, only top left camera was
triggering the observer, and on my branch all cameras could change
plane's color on hover.
- I added viewport offset to mesh_picking, with my changes it works
correctly, while on master picking ray is shifted.
- Sprite picking with viewport offset doesn't work both on master and on
this branch.
These are the only scenarios I tested. I think other picking functions
that use this function should be tested but I couldn't track more uses
of it.
Co-authored-by: Krzysztof Zywiecki <krzysiu@pop-os.Dlink>
# Objective
The goal of `bevy_platform_support` is to provide a set of platform
agnostic APIs, alongside platform-specific functionality. This is a high
traffic crate (providing things like HashMap and Instant). Especially in
light of https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/18799, it
deserves a friendlier / shorter name.
Given that it hasn't had a full release yet, getting this change in
before Bevy 0.16 makes sense.
## Solution
- Rename `bevy_platform_support` to `bevy_platform`.
Migration guide:
# Objective
Currently there seems to be no way to enable picking through
render-to-texture cameras
## Solution
This PR allows casting rays from the game code quite easily.
## Testing
- I've tested these in my game and it seems to work
- I haven't tested edge cases
---
## Showcase
<details>
<summary>Click to view showcase</summary>
```rust
fn cast_rays_from_additional_camera(
cameras: Query<(&GlobalTransform, &Camera, Entity), With<RenderToTextureCamera>>,
mut rays: ResMut<RayMap>,
pointers: Query<(&PointerId, &PointerLocation)>,
) {
for (camera_global_transform, camera, camera_entity) in &cameras {
for (pointer_id, pointer_loc) in &pointers {
let Some(viewport_pos) = pointer_loc.location() else {
continue;
};
// if camera result is transformed in any way, the reverse transformation
// should be applied somewhere here
let ray = camera
.viewport_to_world(camera_global_transform, viewport_pos.position)
.ok();
if let Some(r) = ray {
rays.map.insert(RayId::new(camera_entity, *pointer_id), r);
}
}
}
}
```
</details>
## Migration Guide
The `bevy_picking::backend::ray::RayMap::map` method is removed as
redundant,
In systems using `Res<RayMap>` replace `ray_map.map()` with
`&ray_map.map`
# Objective
Now that #13432 has been merged, it's important we update our reflected
types to properly opt into this feature. If we do not, then this could
cause issues for users downstream who want to make use of
reflection-based cloning.
## Solution
This PR is broken into 4 commits:
1. Add `#[reflect(Clone)]` on all types marked `#[reflect(opaque)]` that
are also `Clone`. This is mandatory as these types would otherwise cause
the cloning operation to fail for any type that contains it at any
depth.
2. Update the reflection example to suggest adding `#[reflect(Clone)]`
on opaque types.
3. Add `#[reflect(clone)]` attributes on all fields marked
`#[reflect(ignore)]` that are also `Clone`. This prevents the ignored
field from causing the cloning operation to fail.
Note that some of the types that contain these fields are also `Clone`,
and thus can be marked `#[reflect(Clone)]`. This makes the
`#[reflect(clone)]` attribute redundant. However, I think it's safer to
keep it marked in the case that the `Clone` impl/derive is ever removed.
I'm open to removing them, though, if people disagree.
4. Finally, I added `#[reflect(Clone)]` on all types that are also
`Clone`. While not strictly necessary, it enables us to reduce the
generated output since we can just call `Clone::clone` directly instead
of calling `PartialReflect::reflect_clone` on each variant/field. It
also means we benefit from any optimizations or customizations made in
the `Clone` impl, including directly dereferencing `Copy` values and
increasing reference counters.
Along with that change I also took the liberty of adding any missing
registrations that I saw could be applied to the type as well, such as
`Default`, `PartialEq`, and `Hash`. There were hundreds of these to
edit, though, so it's possible I missed quite a few.
That last commit is **_massive_**. There were nearly 700 types to
update. So it's recommended to review the first three before moving onto
that last one.
Additionally, I can break the last commit off into its own PR or into
smaller PRs, but I figured this would be the easiest way of doing it
(and in a timely manner since I unfortunately don't have as much time as
I used to for code contributions).
## Testing
You can test locally with a `cargo check`:
```
cargo check --workspace --all-features
```
# Objective
Updates the now inaccurate position docs
Fixes#17832
## Solution
From
`The position of the intersection in the world, if the data is available
from the backend.`
To
`The position reported by the backend, if the data is available.
Position data may be in any space (e.g. World space, Screen space, Local
space), specified by the backend providing it.`
## Testing
uhh reading :)
# Objective
- Contributes to #16877
## Solution
- Moved `hashbrown`, `foldhash`, and related types out of `bevy_utils`
and into `bevy_platform_support`
- Refactored the above to match the layout of these types in `std`.
- Updated crates as required.
## Testing
- CI
---
## Migration Guide
- The following items were moved out of `bevy_utils` and into
`bevy_platform_support::hash`:
- `FixedState`
- `DefaultHasher`
- `RandomState`
- `FixedHasher`
- `Hashed`
- `PassHash`
- `PassHasher`
- `NoOpHash`
- The following items were moved out of `bevy_utils` and into
`bevy_platform_support::collections`:
- `HashMap`
- `HashSet`
- `bevy_utils::hashbrown` has been removed. Instead, import from
`bevy_platform_support::collections` _or_ take a dependency on
`hashbrown` directly.
- `bevy_utils::Entry` has been removed. Instead, import from
`bevy_platform_support::collections::hash_map` or
`bevy_platform_support::collections::hash_set` as appropriate.
- All of the above equally apply to `bevy::utils` and
`bevy::platform_support`.
## Notes
- I left `PreHashMap`, `PreHashMapExt`, and `TypeIdMap` in `bevy_utils`
as they might be candidates for micro-crating. They can always be moved
into `bevy_platform_support` at a later date if desired.
# Objective
PR #17225 allowed for sprite picking to be opt-in. After some
discussion, it was agreed that `PickingBehavior` should be used to
opt-in to sprite picking behavior for entities. This leads to
`PickingBehavior` having two purposes: mark an entity for use in a
backend, and describe how it should be picked. Discussion led to the
name `Pickable`making more sense (also: this is what the component was
named before upstreaming).
A follow-up pass will be made after this PR to unify backends.
## Solution
Replace all instances of `PickingBehavior` and `picking_behavior` with
`Pickable` and `pickable`, respectively.
## Testing
CI
## Migration Guide
Change all instances of `PickingBehavior` to `Pickable`.
# Objective
We were waiting for 1.83 to address most of these, due to a bug with
`missing_docs` and `expect`. Relates to, but does not entirely complete,
#15059.
## Solution
- Upgrade to 1.83
- Switch `allow(missing_docs)` to `expect(missing_docs)`
- Remove a few now-unused `allow`s along the way, or convert to `expect`
# Objective
Fixes https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/16661
## Solution
- Update the doc links to point to the proper objects
## Testing
- Built crate docs and made sure the links worked locally
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
Built-in observers & events should be `Reflect` so that components that
interact with them can be serialized in scenes. This is a similar pr to
#14259.
# Objective
- Rename `Pickable` to `PickingBehavior` to counter the easily-made
assumption that the component is required. It is optional
- Fix and clarify documentation
- The docs in `crates/bevy_ui/src/picking_backend.rs` were incorrect
about the necessity of `Pickable`
- Plus two minor code quality changes in this commit
(7c2e75f48d)
Closes#15632
# Objective
> Rust 1.81 released the #[expect(...)] attribute, which works like
#[allow(...)] but throws a warning if the lint isn't raised. This is
preferred to #[allow(...)] because it tells us when it can be removed.
- Adopts the parts of #15118 that are complete, and updates the branch
so it can be merged.
- There were a few conflicts, let me know if I misjudged any of 'em.
Alice's
[recommendation](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/15059#issuecomment-2349263900)
seems well-taken, let's do this crate by crate now that @BD103 has done
the lion's share of this!
(Relates to, but doesn't yet completely finish #15059.)
Crates this _doesn't_ cover:
- bevy_input
- bevy_gilrs
- bevy_window
- bevy_winit
- bevy_state
- bevy_render
- bevy_picking
- bevy_core_pipeline
- bevy_sprite
- bevy_text
- bevy_pbr
- bevy_ui
- bevy_gltf
- bevy_gizmos
- bevy_dev_tools
- bevy_internal
- bevy_dylib
---------
Co-authored-by: BD103 <59022059+BD103@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Ben Frankel <ben.frankel7@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Antony <antony.m.3012@gmail.com>
# Objective
- Crate-level prelude modules, such as `bevy_ecs::prelude`, are plagued
with inconsistency! Let's fix it!
## Solution
Format all preludes based on the following rules:
1. All preludes should have brief documentation in the format of:
> The _name_ prelude.
>
> This includes the most common types in this crate, re-exported for
your convenience.
2. All documentation should be outer, not inner. (`///` instead of
`//!`.)
3. No prelude modules should be annotated with `#[doc(hidden)]`. (Items
within them may, though I'm not sure why this was done.)
## Testing
- I manually searched for the term `mod prelude` and updated all
occurrences by hand. 🫠
---------
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
- Fixes https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14593.
## Solution
- Add `ViewportConversionError` and return it from viewport conversion
methods on Camera.
## Testing
- I successfully compiled and ran all changed examples.
## Migration Guide
The following methods on `Camera` now return a `Result` instead of an
`Option` so that they can provide more information about failures:
- `world_to_viewport`
- `world_to_viewport_with_depth`
- `viewport_to_world`
- `viewport_to_world_2d`
Call `.ok()` on the `Result` to turn it back into an `Option`, or handle
the `Result` directly.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lixou <82600264+DasLixou@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Zachary Harrold <zac@harrold.com.au>
# Objective
Add `bevy_picking` sprite backend as part of the `bevy_mod_picking`
upstreamening (#12365).
## Solution
More or less a copy/paste from `bevy_mod_picking`, with the changes
[here](https://github.com/aevyrie/bevy_mod_picking/pull/354). I'm
putting that link here since those changes haven't yet made it through
review, so should probably be reviewed on their own.
## Testing
I couldn't find any sprite-backend-specific tests in `bevy_mod_picking`
and unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Bevy's testing patterns
to write tests for code that relies on windowing and input. I'm willing
to break the pointer hit system into testable blocks and add some more
modular tests if that's deemed important enough to block, otherwise I
can open an issue for adding tests as follow-up.
## Follow-up work
- More docs/tests
- Ignore pick events on transparent sprite pixels with potential opt-out
---------
Co-authored-by: Aevyrie <aevyrie@gmail.com>
# Objective
This is the first of a series of PRs intended to begin the upstreaming
process for `bevy_mod_picking`. The purpose of this PR is to:
+ Create the new `bevy_picking` crate
+ Upstream `CorePlugin` as `PickingPlugin`
+ Upstream the core pointer and backend abstractions.
This code has been ported verbatim from the corresponding files in
[bevy_picking_core](https://github.com/aevyrie/bevy_mod_picking/tree/main/crates/bevy_picking_core/src)
with a few tiny naming and docs tweaks.
The work here is only an initial foothold to get the up-streaming
process started in earnest. We can do refactoring and improvements once
this is in-tree.
---------
Co-authored-by: Aevyrie <aevyrie@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
