# Objective
Base sets, added in #7466 are a special type of system set. Systems can only be added to base sets via `in_base_set`, while non-base sets can only be added via `in_set`. Unfortunately this is currently guarded by a runtime panic, which presents an unfortunate toe-stub when the wrong method is used. The delayed response between writing code and encountering the error (possibly hours) makes the distinction between base sets and other sets much more difficult to learn.
## Solution
Add the marker traits `BaseSystemSet` and `FreeSystemSet`. `in_base_set` and `in_set` now respectively accept these traits, which moves the runtime panic to a compile time error.
---
## Changelog
+ Added the marker trait `BaseSystemSet`, which is distinguished from a `FreeSystemSet`. These are both subtraits of `SystemSet`.
## Migration Guide
None if merged with 0.10
# Objective
- it would be nice to be able to associate a `NodeId` of a system type set to the `NodeId` of the actual system (used in bevy_mod_debugdump)
## Solution
- make `system_type` return the type id of the system
- that way you can check if a `dyn SystemSet` is the system type set of a `dyn System`
- I don't know if this information is already present somewhere else in the scheduler or if there is a better way to expose it
# Objective
We have a few old system labels that are now system sets but are still named or documented as labels. Documentation also generally mentioned system labels in some places.
## Solution
- Clean up naming and documentation regarding system sets
## Migration Guide
`PrepareAssetLabel` is now called `PrepareAssetSet`
# Objective
NOTE: This depends on #7267 and should not be merged until #7267 is merged. If you are reviewing this before that is merged, I highly recommend viewing the Base Sets commit instead of trying to find my changes amongst those from #7267.
"Default sets" as described by the [Stageless RFC](https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/pull/45) have some [unfortunate consequences](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/7365).
## Solution
This adds "base sets" as a variant of `SystemSet`:
A set is a "base set" if `SystemSet::is_base` returns `true`. Typically this will be opted-in to using the `SystemSet` derive:
```rust
#[derive(SystemSet, Clone, Hash, Debug, PartialEq, Eq)]
#[system_set(base)]
enum MyBaseSet {
A,
B,
}
```
**Base sets are exclusive**: a system can belong to at most one "base set". Adding a system to more than one will result in an error. When possible we fail immediately during system-config-time with a nice file + line number. For the more nested graph-ey cases, this will fail at the final schedule build.
**Base sets cannot belong to other sets**: this is where the word "base" comes from
Systems and Sets can only be added to base sets using `in_base_set`. Calling `in_set` with a base set will fail. As will calling `in_base_set` with a normal set.
```rust
app.add_system(foo.in_base_set(MyBaseSet::A))
// X must be a normal set ... base sets cannot be added to base sets
.configure_set(X.in_base_set(MyBaseSet::A))
```
Base sets can still be configured like normal sets:
```rust
app.add_system(MyBaseSet::B.after(MyBaseSet::Ap))
```
The primary use case for base sets is enabling a "default base set":
```rust
schedule.set_default_base_set(CoreSet::Update)
// this will belong to CoreSet::Update by default
.add_system(foo)
// this will override the default base set with PostUpdate
.add_system(bar.in_base_set(CoreSet::PostUpdate))
```
This allows us to build apis that work by default in the standard Bevy style. This is a rough analog to the "default stage" model, but it use the new "stageless sets" model instead, with all of the ordering flexibility (including exclusive systems) that it provides.
---
## Changelog
- Added "base sets" and ported CoreSet to use them.
## Migration Guide
TODO
