# 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
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
Prevents duplicate implementation between IntoSystemConfigs and
IntoSystemSetConfigs using a generic, adds a NodeType trait for more
config flexibility (opening the door to implement
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14195?).
## Solution
Followed writeup by @ItsDoot:
https://hackmd.io/@doot/rJeefFHc1x
Removes IntoSystemConfigs and IntoSystemSetConfigs, instead using
IntoNodeConfigs with generics.
## Testing
Pending
---
## Showcase
N/A
## Migration Guide
SystemSetConfigs -> NodeConfigs<InternedSystemSet>
SystemConfigs -> NodeConfigs<ScheduleSystem>
IntoSystemSetConfigs -> IntoNodeConfigs<InternedSystemSet, M>
IntoSystemConfigs -> IntoNodeConfigs<ScheduleSystem, M>
---------
Co-authored-by: Christian Hughes <9044780+ItsDoot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
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>
# Objective
Several of our APIs (namely gizmos and bounding) use isometries on
current Bevy main. This is nicer than separate properties in a lot of
cases, but users have still expressed usability concerns.
One problem is that in a lot of cases, you only care about e.g.
translation, so you end up with this:
```rust
gizmos.cross_2d(
Isometry2d::from_translation(Vec2::new(-160.0, 120.0)),
12.0,
FUCHSIA,
);
```
The isometry adds quite a lot of length and verbosity, and isn't really
that relevant since only the translation is important here.
It would be nice if you could use the translation directly, and only
supply an isometry if both translation and rotation are needed. This
would make the following possible:
```rust
gizmos.cross_2d(Vec2::new(-160.0, 120.0), 12.0, FUCHSIA);
```
removing a lot of verbosity.
## Solution
Implement `From<Vec2>` and `From<Rot2>` for `Isometry2d`, and
`From<Vec3>`, `From<Vec3A>`, and `From<Quat>` for `Isometry3d`. These
are lossless conversions that fit the semantics of `From`.
This makes the proposed API possible! The methods must now simply take
an `impl Into<IsometryNd>`, and this works:
```rust
gizmos.cross_2d(Vec2::new(-160.0, 120.0), 12.0, FUCHSIA);
```
# 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>
# Objective
- Fixes#15236
## Solution
- Use bevy_math::ops instead of std floating point operations.
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
Unit tests and `cargo run -p ci -- test`
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
Execute `cargo run -p ci -- test` on Windows.
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
Windows
## Migration Guide
- Not a breaking change
- Projects should use bevy math where applicable
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: IQuick 143 <IQuick143cz@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Joona Aalto <jondolf.dev@gmail.com>
# Objective
- Solves the last bullet in and closes#14319
- Make better use of the `Isometry` types
- Prevent issues like #14655
- Probably simplify and clean up a lot of code through the use of Gizmos
as well (i.e. the 3D gizmos for cylinders circles & lines don't connect
well, probably due to wrong rotations)
## Solution
- go through the `bevy_gizmos` crate and give all methods a slight
workover
## Testing
- For all the changed examples I run `git switch main && cargo rr
--example <X> && git switch <BRANCH> && cargo rr --example <X>` and
compare the visual results
- Check if all doc tests are still compiling
- Check the docs in general and update them !!!
---
## Migration Guide
The gizmos methods function signature changes as follows:
- 2D
- if it took `position` & `rotation_angle` before ->
`Isometry2d::new(position, Rot2::radians(rotation_angle))`
- if it just took `position` before ->
`Isometry2d::from_translation(position)`
- 3D
- if it took `position` & `rotation` before ->
`Isometry3d::new(position, rotation)`
- if it just took `position` before ->
`Isometry3d::from_translation(position)`
# Objective
Fixes#13427.
## Solution
I changed the traits, and updated all usages.
## Testing
The `render_primitives` example still works perfectly.
---
## Changelog
- Made `gizmos.primitive_2d()` and `gizmos.primitive_3d()` take the
primitives by ref.
## Migration Guide
- Any usages of `gizmos.primitive_2d()` and/or `gizmos.primitive_3d()`
need to be updated to pass the primitive in by reference.
# Objective
- Fixes#13412
## Solution
- Renamed `segments` in `bevy_gizmos` to `resolution` and adjusted
examples
## Migration Guide
- When working with gizmos, replace all calls to `.segments(...)` with
`.resolution(...)`
# Objective
- Part of #9400.
- Add light gizmos for `SpotLight`, `PointLight` and `DirectionalLight`.
## Solution
- Add a `ShowLightGizmo` and its related gizmo group and plugin, that
shows a gizmo for all lights of an entities when inserted on it. Light
display can also be toggled globally through the gizmo config in the
same way it can already be done for `Aabb`s.
- Add distinct segment setters for height and base one `Cone3dBuilder`.
This allow having a properly rounded base without too much edges along
the height. The doc comments explain how to ensure height and base
connect when setting different values.
Gizmo for the three light types without radius with the depth bias set
to -1:
With Radius:
Possible future improvements:
- Add a billboarded sprite with a distinct sprite for each light type.
- Display the intensity of the light somehow (no idea how to represent
that apart from some text).
---
## Changelog
### Added
- The new `ShowLightGizmo`, part of the `LightGizmoPlugin` and
configurable globally with `LightGizmoConfigGroup`, allows drawing gizmo
for `PointLight`, `SpotLight` and `DirectionalLight`. The gizmos color
behavior can be controlled with the `LightGizmoColor` member of
`ShowLightGizmo` and `LightGizmoConfigGroup`.
- The cone gizmo builder (`Cone3dBuilder`) now allows setting a
differing number of segments for the base and height.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
