# Objective
- Related to #19024
## Solution
- Use the new `load_shader_library` macro for the shader libraries and
`embedded_asset`/`load_embedded_asset` for the "shader binaries" in
`bevy_sprite`.
## Testing
- `sprite` example still works.
- `mesh2d` example still works.
P.S. I don't think this needs a migration guide. Technically users could
be using the `pub` weak handles, but there's no actual good use for
them, so omitting it seems fine. Alternatively, we could mix this in
with the migration guide notes for #19137.
# 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
Fixes#18809Fixes#18823
Meshes despawned in `Last` can still be in visisible entities if they
were visible as of `PostUpdate`. Sanity check that the mesh actually
exists before we specialize. We still want to unconditionally assume
that the entity is in `EntitySpecializationTicks` as its absence from
that cache would likely suggest another bug.
# 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`.
# Objective
Fixes#16896Fixes#17737
## Solution
Adds a new render phase, including all the new cold specialization
patterns, for wireframes. There's a *lot* of regrettable duplication
here between 3d/2d.
## Testing
All the examples.
## Migration Guide
- `WireframePlugin` must now be created with
`WireframePlugin::default()`.
# 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
`insert_or_spawn_batch` is due to be deprecated eventually (#15704), and
removing uses internally will make that easier.
## Solution
Replaced internal uses of `insert_or_spawn_batch` with
`try_insert_batch` (non-panicking variant because
`insert_or_spawn_batch` didn't panic).
All of the internal uses are in rendering code. Since retained rendering
was meant to get rid non-opaque entity IDs, I assume the code was just
using `insert_or_spawn_batch` because `insert_batch` didn't exist and
not because it actually wanted to spawn something. However, I am *not*
confident in my ability to judge rendering code.
## Objective
Alternative to #18001.
- Now that systems can handle the `?` operator, `get_entity` returning
`Result` would be more useful than `Option`.
- With `get_entity` being more flexible, combined with entity commands
now checking the entity's existence automatically, the panic in `entity`
isn't really necessary.
## Solution
- Changed `Commands::get_entity` to return `Result<EntityCommands,
EntityDoesNotExistError>`.
- Removed panic from `Commands::entity`.
# Objective
- Make use of the new `weak_handle!` macro added in
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/17384
## Solution
- Migrate bevy from `Handle::weak_from_u128` to the new `weak_handle!`
macro that takes a random UUID
- Deprecate `Handle::weak_from_u128`, since there are no remaining use
cases that can't also be addressed by constructing the type manually
## Testing
- `cargo run -p ci -- test`
---
## Migration Guide
Replace `Handle::weak_from_u128` with `weak_handle!` and a random UUID.
# Objective
I never realized `clippy::type_complexity` was an allowed lint - I've
been assuming it'd generate a warning when performing my linting PRs.
## Solution
Removes any instances of `#[allow(clippy::type_complexity)]` and
`#[expect(clippy::type_complexity)]`
## Testing
`cargo clippy` ran without errors or warnings.
I broke the commit history on the other one,
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/17160. Woops.
# Objective
- https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/17111
## Solution
Set the `clippy::allow_attributes` and
`clippy::allow_attributes_without_reason` lints to `deny`, and bring
`bevy_sprite` in line with the new restrictions.
## Testing
`cargo clippy` and `cargo test --package bevy_sprite` were run, and no
errors were encountered.
As discussed in #15521
- Partial revert of #14897, reverting the change to the methods to
consume `self`
- The `insert_if` method is kept
The migration guide of #14897 should be removed
Closes#15521
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
A big step in the migration to required components: meshes and
materials!
## Solution
As per the [selected
proposal](https://hackmd.io/@bevy/required_components/%2Fj9-PnF-2QKK0on1KQ29UWQ):
- Deprecate `MaterialMesh2dBundle`, `MaterialMeshBundle`, and
`PbrBundle`.
- Add `Mesh2d` and `Mesh3d` components, which wrap a `Handle<Mesh>`.
- Add `MeshMaterial2d<M: Material2d>` and `MeshMaterial3d<M: Material>`,
which wrap a `Handle<M>`.
- Meshes *without* a mesh material should be rendered with a default
material. The existence of a material is determined by
`HasMaterial2d`/`HasMaterial3d`, which is required by
`MeshMaterial2d`/`MeshMaterial3d`. This gets around problems with the
generics.
Previously:
```rust
commands.spawn(MaterialMesh2dBundle {
mesh: meshes.add(Circle::new(100.0)).into(),
material: materials.add(Color::srgb(7.5, 0.0, 7.5)),
transform: Transform::from_translation(Vec3::new(-200., 0., 0.)),
..default()
});
```
Now:
```rust
commands.spawn((
Mesh2d(meshes.add(Circle::new(100.0))),
MeshMaterial2d(materials.add(Color::srgb(7.5, 0.0, 7.5))),
Transform::from_translation(Vec3::new(-200., 0., 0.)),
));
```
If the mesh material is missing, previously nothing was rendered. Now,
it renders a white default `ColorMaterial` in 2D and a
`StandardMaterial` in 3D (this can be overridden). Below, only every
other entity has a material:
Why white? This is still open for discussion, but I think white makes
sense for a *default* material, while *invalid* asset handles pointing
to nothing should have something like a pink material to indicate that
something is broken (I don't handle that in this PR yet). This is kind
of a mix of Godot and Unity: Godot just renders a white material for
non-existent materials, while Unity renders nothing when no materials
exist, but renders pink for invalid materials. I can also change the
default material to pink if that is preferable though.
## Testing
I ran some 2D and 3D examples to test if anything changed visually. I
have not tested all examples or features yet however. If anyone wants to
test more extensively, it would be appreciated!
## Implementation Notes
- The relationship between `bevy_render` and `bevy_pbr` is weird here.
`bevy_render` needs `Mesh3d` for its own systems, but `bevy_pbr` has all
of the material logic, and `bevy_render` doesn't depend on it. I feel
like the two crates should be refactored in some way, but I think that's
out of scope for this PR.
- I didn't migrate meshlets to required components yet. That can
probably be done in a follow-up, as this is already a huge PR.
- It is becoming increasingly clear to me that we really, *really* want
to disallow raw asset handles as components. They caused me a *ton* of
headache here already, and it took me a long time to find every place
that queried for them or inserted them directly on entities, since there
were no compiler errors for it. If we don't remove the `Component`
derive, I expect raw asset handles to be a *huge* footgun for users as
we transition to wrapper components, especially as handles as components
have been the norm so far. I personally consider this to be a blocker
for 0.15: we need to migrate to wrapper components for asset handles
everywhere, and remove the `Component` derive. Also see
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14124.
---
## Migration Guide
Asset handles for meshes and mesh materials must now be wrapped in the
`Mesh2d` and `MeshMaterial2d` or `Mesh3d` and `MeshMaterial3d`
components for 2D and 3D respectively. Raw handles as components no
longer render meshes.
Additionally, `MaterialMesh2dBundle`, `MaterialMeshBundle`, and
`PbrBundle` have been deprecated. Instead, use the mesh and material
components directly.
Previously:
```rust
commands.spawn(MaterialMesh2dBundle {
mesh: meshes.add(Circle::new(100.0)).into(),
material: materials.add(Color::srgb(7.5, 0.0, 7.5)),
transform: Transform::from_translation(Vec3::new(-200., 0., 0.)),
..default()
});
```
Now:
```rust
commands.spawn((
Mesh2d(meshes.add(Circle::new(100.0))),
MeshMaterial2d(materials.add(Color::srgb(7.5, 0.0, 7.5))),
Transform::from_translation(Vec3::new(-200., 0., 0.)),
));
```
If the mesh material is missing, a white default material is now used.
Previously, nothing was rendered if the material was missing.
The `WithMesh2d` and `WithMesh3d` query filter type aliases have also
been removed. Simply use `With<Mesh2d>` or `With<Mesh3d>`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Tim Blackbird <justthecooldude@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
# Objective
Fixes#14883
## Solution
Pretty simple update to `EntityCommands` methods to consume `self` and
return it rather than taking `&mut self`. The things probably worth
noting:
* I added `#[allow(clippy::should_implement_trait)]` to the `add` method
because it causes a linting conflict with `std::ops::Add`.
* `despawn` and `log_components` now return `Self`. I'm not sure if
that's exactly the desired behavior so I'm happy to adjust if that seems
wrong.
## Testing
Tested with `cargo run -p ci`. I think that should be sufficient to call
things good.
## Migration Guide
The most likely migration needed is changing code from this:
```
let mut entity = commands.get_or_spawn(entity);
if depth_prepass {
entity.insert(DepthPrepass);
}
if normal_prepass {
entity.insert(NormalPrepass);
}
if motion_vector_prepass {
entity.insert(MotionVectorPrepass);
}
if deferred_prepass {
entity.insert(DeferredPrepass);
}
```
to this:
```
let mut entity = commands.get_or_spawn(entity);
if depth_prepass {
entity = entity.insert(DepthPrepass);
}
if normal_prepass {
entity = entity.insert(NormalPrepass);
}
if motion_vector_prepass {
entity = entity.insert(MotionVectorPrepass);
}
if deferred_prepass {
entity.insert(DeferredPrepass);
}
```
as can be seen in several of the example code updates here. There will
probably also be instances where mutable `EntityCommands` vars no longer
need to be mutable.
# Objective
- Wireframe plugins have inconsistencies between 3D and 2D versions.
This PR addresses the following
- 2d version uses `Srgba` for colors, 3d version uses `Color`.
## Solution
- This PR brings consistency by doing the following change
- `Wireframe2d` now uses `Color` instead of `Srgba`
## Testing
- `wireframe_2d` and `wireframe` examples were verified and they work as
before.
---
## Migration Guide
- `Wireframe2dConfig`.`default_color` type is now `Color` instead of
`Srgba`. Use `.into()` to convert between them.
- `Wireframe2dColor`.`color` type is now `Color` instead of `Srgba`. Use
`.into()` to convert between them.
# Objective
Wireframes are currently supported for 3D meshes using the
`WireframePlugin` in `bevy_pbr`. This PR adds the same functionality for
2D meshes.
Closes#5881.
## Solution
Since there's no easy way to share material implementations between 2D,
3D, and UI, this is mostly a straight copy and rename from the original
plugin into `bevy_sprite`.
<img width="1392" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/assets/3961616/7aca156f-448a-4c7e-89b8-0a72c5919769">
---
## Changelog
- Added `Wireframe2dPlugin` and related types to support 2D wireframes.
- Added an example to demonstrate how to use 2D wireframes
---------
Co-authored-by: IceSentry <IceSentry@users.noreply.github.com>
