d0caea0882
9 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AlephCubed
|
5f86668bbb
|
Renamed EventWriter::send methods to write. (#17977)
Fixes #17856. ## Migration Guide - `EventWriter::send` has been renamed to `EventWriter::write`. - `EventWriter::send_batch` has been renamed to `EventWriter::write_batch`. - `EventWriter::send_default` has been renamed to `EventWriter::write_default`. --------- Co-authored-by: François Mockers <mockersf@gmail.com> |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
ba5e71f53d
|
Parent -> ChildOf (#17427)
Fixes #17412 ## Objective `Parent` uses the "has a X" naming convention. There is increasing sentiment that we should use the "is a X" naming convention for relationships (following #17398). This leaves `Children` as-is because there is prevailing sentiment that `Children` is clearer than `ParentOf` in many cases (especially when treating it like a collection). This renames `Parent` to `ChildOf`. This is just the implementation PR. To discuss the path forward, do so in #17412. ## Migration Guide - The `Parent` component has been renamed to `ChildOf`. |
||
|
Carter Anderson
|
21f1e3045c
|
Relationships (non-fragmenting, one-to-many) (#17398)
This adds support for one-to-many non-fragmenting relationships (with planned paths for fragmenting and non-fragmenting many-to-many relationships). "Non-fragmenting" means that entities with the same relationship type, but different relationship targets, are not forced into separate tables (which would cause "table fragmentation"). Functionally, this fills a similar niche as the current Parent/Children system. The biggest differences are: 1. Relationships have simpler internals and significantly improved performance and UX. Commands and specialized APIs are no longer necessary to keep everything in sync. Just spawn entities with the relationship components you want and everything "just works". 2. Relationships are generalized. Bevy can provide additional built in relationships, and users can define their own. **REQUEST TO REVIEWERS**: _please don't leave top level comments and instead comment on specific lines of code. That way we can take advantage of threaded discussions. Also dont leave comments simply pointing out CI failures as I can read those just fine._ ## Built on top of what we have Relationships are implemented on top of the Bevy ECS features we already have: components, immutability, and hooks. This makes them immediately compatible with all of our existing (and future) APIs for querying, spawning, removing, scenes, reflection, etc. The fewer specialized APIs we need to build, maintain, and teach, the better. ## Why focus on one-to-many non-fragmenting first? 1. This allows us to improve Parent/Children relationships immediately, in a way that is reasonably uncontroversial. Switching our hierarchy to fragmenting relationships would have significant performance implications. ~~Flecs is heavily considering a switch to non-fragmenting relations after careful considerations of the performance tradeoffs.~~ _(Correction from @SanderMertens: Flecs is implementing non-fragmenting storage specialized for asset hierarchies, where asset hierarchies are many instances of small trees that have a well defined structure)_ 2. Adding generalized one-to-many relationships is currently a priority for the [Next Generation Scene / UI effort](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/14437). Specifically, we're interested in building reactions and observers on top. ## The changes This PR does the following: 1. Adds a generic one-to-many Relationship system 3. Ports the existing Parent/Children system to Relationships, which now lives in `bevy_ecs::hierarchy`. The old `bevy_hierarchy` crate has been removed. 4. Adds on_despawn component hooks 5. Relationships can opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior, meaning that the entire relationship hierarchy is despawned when `entity.despawn()` is called. The built in Parent/Children hierarchies enable this behavior, and `entity.despawn_recursive()` has been removed. 6. `world.spawn` now applies commands after spawning. This ensures that relationship bookkeeping happens immediately and removes the need to manually flush. This is in line with the equivalent behaviors recently added to the other APIs (ex: insert). 7. Removes the ValidParentCheckPlugin (system-driven / poll based) in favor of a `validate_parent_has_component` hook. ## Using Relationships The `Relationship` trait looks like this: ```rust pub trait Relationship: Component + Sized { type RelationshipSources: RelationshipSources<Relationship = Self>; fn get(&self) -> Entity; fn from(entity: Entity) -> Self; } ``` A relationship is a component that: 1. Is a simple wrapper over a "target" Entity. 2. Has a corresponding `RelationshipSources` component, which is a simple wrapper over a collection of entities. Every "target entity" targeted by a "source entity" with a `Relationship` has a `RelationshipSources` component, which contains every "source entity" that targets it. For example, the `Parent` component (as it currently exists in Bevy) is the `Relationship` component and the entity containing the Parent is the "source entity". The entity _inside_ the `Parent(Entity)` component is the "target entity". And that target entity has a `Children` component (which implements `RelationshipSources`). In practice, the Parent/Children relationship looks like this: ```rust #[derive(Relationship)] #[relationship(relationship_sources = Children)] pub struct Parent(pub Entity); #[derive(RelationshipSources)] #[relationship_sources(relationship = Parent)] pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>); ``` The Relationship and RelationshipSources derives automatically implement Component with the relevant configuration (namely, the hooks necessary to keep everything in sync). The most direct way to add relationships is to spawn entities with relationship components: ```rust let a = world.spawn_empty().id(); let b = world.spawn(Parent(a)).id(); assert_eq!(world.entity(a).get::<Children>().unwrap(), &[b]); ``` There are also convenience APIs for spawning more than one entity with the same relationship: ```rust world.spawn_empty().with_related::<Children>(|s| { s.spawn_empty(); s.spawn_empty(); }) ``` The existing `with_children` API is now a simpler wrapper over `with_related`. This makes this change largely non-breaking for existing spawn patterns. ```rust world.spawn_empty().with_children(|s| { s.spawn_empty(); s.spawn_empty(); }) ``` There are also other relationship APIs, such as `add_related` and `despawn_related`. ## Automatic recursive despawn via the new on_despawn hook `RelationshipSources` can opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior, which will despawn all related entities in the relationship hierarchy: ```rust #[derive(RelationshipSources)] #[relationship_sources(relationship = Parent, despawn_descendants)] pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>); ``` This means that `entity.despawn_recursive()` is no longer required. Instead, just use `entity.despawn()` and the relevant related entities will also be despawned. To despawn an entity _without_ despawning its parent/child descendants, you should remove the `Children` component first, which will also remove the related `Parent` components: ```rust entity .remove::<Children>() .despawn() ``` This builds on the on_despawn hook introduced in this PR, which is fired when an entity is despawned (before other hooks). ## Relationships are the source of truth `Relationship` is the _single_ source of truth component. `RelationshipSources` is merely a reflection of what all the `Relationship` components say. By embracing this, we are able to significantly improve the performance of the system as a whole. We can rely on component lifecycles to protect us against duplicates, rather than needing to scan at runtime to ensure entities don't already exist (which results in quadratic runtime). A single source of truth gives us constant-time inserts. This does mean that we cannot directly spawn populated `Children` components (or directly add or remove entities from those components). I personally think this is a worthwhile tradeoff, both because it makes the performance much better _and_ because it means theres exactly one way to do things (which is a philosophy we try to employ for Bevy APIs). As an aside: treating both sides of the relationship as "equivalent source of truth relations" does enable building simple and flexible many-to-many relationships. But this introduces an _inherent_ need to scan (or hash) to protect against duplicates. [`evergreen_relations`](https://github.com/EvergreenNest/evergreen_relations) has a very nice implementation of the "symmetrical many-to-many" approach. Unfortunately I think the performance issues inherent to that approach make it a poor choice for Bevy's default relationship system. ## Followup Work * Discuss renaming `Parent` to `ChildOf`. I refrained from doing that in this PR to keep the diff reasonable, but I'm personally biased toward this change (and using that naming pattern generally for relationships). * [Improved spawning ergonomics](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/16920) * Consider adding relationship observers/triggers for "relationship targets" whenever a source is added or removed. This would replace the current "hierarchy events" system, which is unused upstream but may have existing users downstream. I think triggers are the better fit for this than a buffered event queue, and would prefer not to add that back. * Fragmenting relations: My current idea hinges on the introduction of "value components" (aka: components whose type _and_ value determines their ComponentId, via something like Hashing / PartialEq). By labeling a Relationship component such as `ChildOf(Entity)` as a "value component", `ChildOf(e1)` and `ChildOf(e2)` would be considered "different components". This makes the transition between fragmenting and non-fragmenting a single flag, and everything else continues to work as expected. * Many-to-many support * Non-fragmenting: We can expand Relationship to be a list of entities instead of a single entity. I have largely already written the code for this. * Fragmenting: With the "value component" impl mentioned above, we get many-to-many support "for free", as it would allow inserting multiple copies of a Relationship component with different target entities. Fixes #3742 (If this PR is merged, I think we should open more targeted followup issues for the work above, with a fresh tracking issue free of the large amount of less-directed historical context) Fixes #17301 Fixes #12235 Fixes #15299 Fixes #15308 ## Migration Guide * Replace `ChildBuilder` with `ChildSpawnerCommands`. * Replace calls to `.set_parent(parent_id)` with `.insert(Parent(parent_id))`. * Replace calls to `.replace_children()` with `.remove::<Children>()` followed by `.add_children()`. Note that you'll need to manually despawn any children that are not carried over. * Replace calls to `.despawn_recursive()` with `.despawn()`. * Replace calls to `.despawn_descendants()` with `.despawn_related::<Children>()`. * If you have any calls to `.despawn()` which depend on the children being preserved, you'll need to remove the `Children` component first. --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
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` |
||
|
Christian Hughes
|
219b5930f1
|
Rename App/World::observe to add_observer, EntityWorldMut::observe_entity to observe. (#15754)
# Objective - Closes #15752 Calling the functions `App::observe` and `World::observe` doesn't make sense because you're not "observing" the `App` or `World`, you're adding an observer that listens for an event that occurs *within* the `World`. We should rename them to better fit this. ## Solution Renames: - `App::observe` -> `App::add_observer` - `World::observe` -> `World::add_observer` - `Commands::observe` -> `Commands::add_observer` - `EntityWorldMut::observe_entity` -> `EntityWorldMut::observe` (Note this isn't a breaking change as the original rename was introduced earlier this cycle.) ## Testing Reusing current tests. |
||
|
Benjamin Brienen
|
27bea6abf7
|
Bubbling observers traversal should use query data (#15385)
# Objective Fixes #14331 ## Solution - Make `Traversal` a subtrait of `ReadOnlyQueryData` - Update implementations and usages ## Testing - Updated unit tests ## Migration Guide Update implementations of `Traversal`. --------- Co-authored-by: Christian Hughes <9044780+ItsDoot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
EdJoPaTo
|
938d810766
|
Apply unused_qualifications lint (#14828)
# Objective Fixes #14782 ## Solution Enable the lint and fix all upcoming hints (`--fix`). Also tried to figure out the false-positive (see review comment). Maybe split this PR up into multiple parts where only the last one enables the lint, so some can already be merged resulting in less many files touched / less potential for merge conflicts? Currently, there are some cases where it might be easier to read the code with the qualifier, so perhaps remove the import of it and adapt its cases? In the current stage it's just a plain adoption of the suggestions in order to have a base to discuss. ## Testing `cargo clippy` and `cargo run -p ci` are happy. |
||
|
EdJoPaTo
|
a6d233981d
|
Fix ecs example thread_rng duplicate creation (#14795)
# Objective While looking through the changes #14782 will create I noticed this. ## Solution Reuse the existing thread_rng. As this is a code change I would like to not include it in a pure lint enable PR. ## Testing I did not test this change (other than the automated CI with this PR). I think it should be a fairly simple change that can be reviewed only by the code. |
||
|
Miles Silberling-Cook
|
ed2b8e0f35
|
Minimal Bubbling Observers (#13991)
# Objective
Add basic bubbling to observers, modeled off `bevy_eventlistener`.
## Solution
- Introduce a new `Traversal` trait for components which point to other
entities.
- Provide a default `TraverseNone: Traversal` component which cannot be
constructed.
- Implement `Traversal` for `Parent`.
- The `Event` trait now has an associated `Traversal` which defaults to
`TraverseNone`.
- Added a field `bubbling: &mut bool` to `Trigger` which can be used to
instruct the runner to bubble the event to the entity specified by the
event's traversal type.
- Added an associated constant `SHOULD_BUBBLE` to `Event` which
configures the default bubbling state.
- Added logic to wire this all up correctly.
Introducing the new associated information directly on `Event` (instead
of a new `BubblingEvent` trait) lets us dispatch both bubbling and
non-bubbling events through the same api.
## Testing
I have added several unit tests to cover the common bugs I identified
during development. Running the unit tests should be enough to validate
correctness. The changes effect unsafe portions of the code, but should
not change any of the safety assertions.
## Changelog
Observers can now bubble up the entity hierarchy! To create a bubbling
event, change your `Derive(Event)` to something like the following:
```rust
#[derive(Component)]
struct MyEvent;
impl Event for MyEvent {
type Traverse = Parent; // This event will propagate up from child to parent.
const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = true; // This event will propagate by default.
}
```
You can dispatch a bubbling event using the normal
`world.trigger_targets(MyEvent, entity)`.
Halting an event mid-bubble can be done using
`trigger.propagate(false)`. Events with `AUTO_PROPAGATE = false` will
not propagate by default, but you can enable it using
`trigger.propagate(true)`.
If there are multiple observers attached to a target, they will all be
triggered by bubbling. They all share a bubbling state, which can be
accessed mutably using `trigger.propagation_mut()` (`trigger.propagate`
is just sugar for this).
You can choose to implement `Traversal` for your own types, if you want
to bubble along a different structure than provided by `bevy_hierarchy`.
Implementers must be careful never to produce loops, because this will
cause bevy to hang.
## Migration Guide
+ Manual implementations of `Event` should add associated type `Traverse
= TraverseNone` and associated constant `AUTO_PROPAGATE = false`;
+ `Trigger::new` has new field `propagation: &mut Propagation` which
provides the bubbling state.
+ `ObserverRunner` now takes the same `&mut Propagation` as a final
parameter.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Torstein Grindvik <52322338+torsteingrindvik@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
|