df6e136ab0
15 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Zachary Harrold
|
76e9bf9c99
|
Automatically enable portable-atomic when required (#17570)
# Objective - Contributes to #15460 - Reduce quantity and complexity of feature gates across Bevy ## Solution - Used `target_has_atomic` configuration variable to automatically detect impartial atomic support and automatically switch to `portable-atomic` over the standard library on an as-required basis. ## Testing - CI ## Notes To explain the technique employed here, consider getting `Arc` either from `alloc::sync` _or_ `portable-atomic-util`. First, we can inspect the `alloc` crate to see that you only have access to `Arc` _if_ `target_has_atomic = "ptr"`. We add a target dependency for this particular configuration _inverted_: ```toml [target.'cfg(not(target_has_atomic = "ptr"))'.dependencies] portable-atomic-util = { version = "0.2.4", default-features = false } ``` This ensures we only have the dependency when it is needed, and it is entirely excluded from the dependency graph when it is not. Next, we adjust our configuration flags to instead of checking for `feature = "portable-atomic"` to instead check for `target_has_atomic = "ptr"`: ```rust // `alloc` feature flag hidden for brevity #[cfg(not(target_has_atomic = "ptr"))] use portable_atomic_util as arc; #[cfg(target_has_atomic = "ptr")] use alloc::sync as arc; pub use arc::{Arc, Weak}; ``` The benefits of this technique are three-fold: 1. For platforms without full atomic support, the functionality is enabled automatically. 2. For platforms with atomic support, the dependency is never included, even if a feature was enabled using `--all-features` (for example) 3. The `portable-atomic` feature no longer needs to virally spread to all user-facing crates, it's instead something handled within `bevy_platform_support` (with some extras where other dependencies also need their features enabled). |
||
|
raldone01
|
1b7db895b7
|
Harden proc macro path resolution and add integration tests. (#17330)
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> |
||
|
poopy
|
15f00278e7
|
Rename ArgList::push methods to with and add new push methods which take &mut self (#16567)
# Objective
The `ArgList::push` family of methods consume `self` and return a new
`ArgList` which means they can't be used with `&mut ArgList` references.
```rust
fn foo(args: &mut ArgList) {
args.push_owned(47_i32); // doesn't work :(
}
```
It's typical for `push` methods on other existing types to take `&mut
self`.
## Solution
Renamed the existing push methods to `with_arg`, `with_ref` etc and
added new `push` methods which take `&mut self`.
## Migration Guide
Uses of the `ArgList::push` methods should be replaced with the `with`
counterpart.
<details>
| old | new |
| --- | --- |
| push_arg | with_arg |
| push_ref | with_ref |
| push_mut | with_mut |
| push_owned | with_owned |
| push_boxed | with_boxed |
</details>
|
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
9bc0ae33c3
|
Move hashbrown and foldhash out of bevy_utils (#17460)
# 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. |
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
a64446b77e
|
Create bevy_platform_support Crate (#17250)
# Objective - Contributes to #16877 ## Solution - Initial creation of `bevy_platform_support` crate. - Moved `bevy_utils::Instant` into new `bevy_platform_support` crate. - Moved `portable-atomic`, `portable-atomic-util`, and `critical-section` into new `bevy_platform_support` crate. ## Testing - CI --- ## Showcase Instead of needing code like this to import an `Arc`: ```rust #[cfg(feature = "portable-atomic")] use portable_atomic_util::Arc; #[cfg(not(feature = "portable-atomic"))] use alloc::sync::Arc; ``` We can now use: ```rust use bevy_platform_support::sync::Arc; ``` This applies to many other types, but the goal is overall the same: allowing crates to use `std`-like types without the boilerplate of conditional compilation and platform-dependencies. ## Migration Guide - Replace imports of `bevy_utils::Instant` with `bevy_platform_support::time::Instant` - Replace imports of `bevy::utils::Instant` with `bevy::platform_support::time::Instant` ## Notes - `bevy_platform_support` hasn't been reserved on `crates.io` - ~~`bevy_platform_support` is not re-exported from `bevy` at this time. It may be worthwhile exporting this crate, but I am unsure of a reasonable name to export it under (`platform_support` may be a bit wordy for user-facing).~~ - I've included an implementation of `Instant` which is suitable for `no_std` platforms that are not Wasm for the sake of eliminating feature gates around its use. It may be a controversial inclusion, so I'm happy to remove it if required. - There are many other items (`spin`, `bevy_utils::Sync(Unsafe)Cell`, etc.) which should be added to this crate. I have kept the initial scope small to demonstrate utility without making this too unwieldy. --------- Co-authored-by: TimJentzsch <TimJentzsch@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Chris Russell <8494645+chescock@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: François Mockers <francois.mockers@vleue.com> |
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
0403948aa2
|
Remove Implicit std Prelude from no_std Crates (#17086)
# Background In `no_std` compatible crates, there is often an `std` feature which will allow access to the standard library. Currently, with the `std` feature _enabled_, the [`std::prelude`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/prelude/index.html) is implicitly imported in all modules. With the feature _disabled_, instead the [`core::prelude`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/core/prelude/index.html) is implicitly imported. This creates a subtle and pervasive issue where `alloc` items _may_ be implicitly included (if `std` is enabled), or must be explicitly included (if `std` is not enabled). # Objective - Make the implicit imports for `no_std` crates consistent regardless of what features are/not enabled. ## Solution - Replace the `cfg_attr` "double negative" `no_std` attribute with conditional compilation to _include_ `std` as an external crate. ```rust // Before #![cfg_attr(not(feature = "std"), no_std)] // After #![no_std] #[cfg(feature = "std")] extern crate std; ``` - Fix imports that are currently broken but are only now visible with the above fix. ## Testing - CI ## Notes I had previously used the "double negative" version of `no_std` based on general consensus that it was "cleaner" within the Rust embedded community. However, this implicit prelude issue likely was considered when forming this consensus. I believe the reason why is the items most affected by this issue are provided by the `alloc` crate, which is rarely used within embedded but extensively used within Bevy. |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
ca294a89b4
|
bevy_reflect: Remove PartialReflect::serializable (#16576)
# Objective `PartialReflect::serializable` is unused in the codebase and should be removed. I believe it originally was used to handle serializing certain types but that's no longer the case. ## Solution Remove `PartialReflect::serializable`. ## Testing You can check locally using: ``` cargo check -p bevy_reflect --all-features ``` --- ## Migration Guide `PartialReflect::serializable` has been removed. If you were using this to pass on serialization information, use `ReflectSerialize` instead or create custom type data to generate the `Serializable`. |
||
|
Clar Fon
|
711246aa34
|
Update hashbrown to 0.15 (#15801)
Updating dependencies; adopted version of #15696. (Supercedes #15696.) Long answer: hashbrown is no longer using ahash by default, meaning that we can't use the default-hasher methods with ahasher. So, we have to use the longer-winded versions instead. This takes the opportunity to also switch our default hasher as well, but without actually enabling the default-hasher feature for hashbrown, meaning that we'll be able to change our hasher more easily at the cost of all of these method calls being obnoxious forever. One large change from 0.15 is that `insert_unique_unchecked` is now `unsafe`, and for cases where unsafe code was denied at the crate level, I replaced it with `insert`. ## Migration Guide `bevy_utils` has updated its version of `hashbrown` to 0.15 and now defaults to `foldhash` instead of `ahash`. This means that if you've hard-coded your hasher to `bevy_utils::AHasher` or separately used the `ahash` crate in your code, you may need to switch to `foldhash` to ensure that everything works like it does in Bevy. |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
d21c7a1911
|
bevy_reflect: Function Overloading (Generic & Variadic Functions) (#15074)
# Objective
Currently function reflection requires users to manually monomorphize
their generic functions. For example:
```rust
fn add<T: Add<Output=T>>(a: T, b: T) -> T {
a + b
}
// We have to specify the type of `T`:
let reflect_add = add::<i32>.into_function();
```
This PR doesn't aim to solve that problem—this is just a limitation in
Rust. However, it also means that reflected functions can only ever work
for a single monomorphization. If we wanted to support other types for
`T`, we'd have to create a separate function for each one:
```rust
let reflect_add_i32 = add::<i32>.into_function();
let reflect_add_u32 = add::<u32>.into_function();
let reflect_add_f32 = add::<f32>.into_function();
// ...
```
So in addition to requiring manual monomorphization, we also lose the
benefit of having a single function handle multiple argument types.
If a user wanted to create a small modding script that utilized function
reflection, they'd have to either:
- Store all sets of supported monomorphizations and require users to
call the correct one
- Write out some logic to find the correct function based on the given
arguments
While the first option would work, it wouldn't be very ergonomic. The
second option is better, but it adds additional complexity to the user's
logic—complexity that `bevy_reflect` could instead take on.
## Solution
Introduce [function
overloading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_overloading).
A `DynamicFunction` can now be overloaded with other `DynamicFunction`s.
We can rewrite the above code like so:
```rust
let reflect_add = add::<i32>
.into_function()
.with_overload(add::<u32>)
.with_overload(add::<f32>);
```
When invoked, the `DynamicFunction` will attempt to find a matching
overload for the given set of arguments.
And while I went into this PR only looking to improve generic function
reflection, I accidentally added support for variadic functions as well
(hence why I use the broader term "overload" over "generic").
```rust
// Supports 1 to 4 arguments
let multiply_all = (|a: i32| a)
.into_function()
.with_overload(|a: i32, b: i32| a * b)
.with_overload(|a: i32, b: i32, c: i32| a * b * c)
.with_overload(|a: i32, b: i32, c: i32, d: i32| a * b * c * d);
```
This is simply an added bonus to this particular implementation. ~~Full
variadic support (i.e. allowing for an indefinite number of arguments)
will be added in a later PR.~~ I actually decided to limit the maximum
number of arguments to 63 to supplement faster lookups, a reduced memory
footprint, and faster cloning.
### Alternatives & Rationale
I explored a few options for handling generic functions. This PR is the
one I feel the most confident in, but I feel I should mention the others
and why I ultimately didn't move forward with them.
#### Adding `GenericDynamicFunction`
**TL;DR:** Adding a distinct `GenericDynamicFunction` type unnecessarily
splits and complicates the API.
<details>
<summary>Details</summary>
My initial explorations involved a dedicated `GenericDynamicFunction` to
contain and handle the mappings.
This was initially started back when `DynamicFunction` was distinct from
`DynamicClosure`. My goal was to not prevent us from being able to
somehow make `DynamicFunction` implement `Copy`. But once we reverted
back to a single `DynamicFunction`, that became a non-issue.
But that aside, the real problem was that it created a split in the API.
If I'm using a third-party library that uses function reflection, I have
to know whether to request a `DynamicFunction` or a
`GenericDynamicFunction`. I might not even know ahead of time which one
I want. It might need to be determined at runtime.
And if I'm creating a library, I might want a type to contain both
`DynamicFunction` and `GenericDynamicFunction`. This might not be
possible if, for example, I need to store the function in a `HashMap`.
The other concern is with `IntoFunction`. Right now `DynamicFunction`
trivially implements `IntoFunction` since it can just return itself. But
what should `GenericDynamicFunction` do? It could return itself wrapped
into a `DynamicFunction`, but then the API for `DynamicFunction` would
have to account for this. So then what was the point of having a
separate `GenericDynamicFunction` anyways?
And even apart from `IntoFunction`, there's nothing stopping someone
from manually creating a generic `DynamicFunction` through lying about
its `FunctionInfo` and wrapping a `GenericDynamicFunction`.
That being said, this is probably the "best" alternative if we added a
`Function` trait and stored functions as `Box<dyn Function>`.
However, I'm not convinced we gain much from this. Sure, we could keep
the API for `DynamicFunction` the same, but consumers of `Function` will
need to account for `GenericDynamicFunction` regardless (e.g. handling
multiple `FunctionInfo`, a ranged argument count, etc.). And for all
cases, except where using `DynamicFunction` directly, you end up
treating them all like `GenericDynamicFunction`.
Right now, if we did go with `GenericDynamicFunction`, the only major
benefit we'd gain would be saving 24 bytes. If memory ever does become
an issue here, we could swap over. But I think for the time being it's
better for us to pursue a clearer mental model and end-user ergonomics
through unification.
</details>
##### Using the `FunctionRegistry`
**TL;DR:** Having overloads only exist in the `FunctionRegistry`
unnecessarily splits and complicates the API.
<details>
<summary>Details</summary>
Another idea was to store the overloads in the `FunctionRegistry`. Users
would then just call functions directly through the registry (i.e.
`registry.call("my_func", my_args)`).
I didn't go with this option because of how it specifically relies on
the functions being registered. You'd not only always need access to the
registry, but you'd need to ensure that the functions you want to call
are even registered.
It also means you can't just store a generic `DynamicFunction` on a
type. Instead, you'll need to store the function's name and use that to
look up the function in the registry—even if it's only ever used by that
type.
Doing so also removes all the benefits of `DynamicFunction`, such as the
ability to pass it to functions accepting `IntoFunction`, modify it if
needed, and so on.
Like `GenericDynamicFunction` this introduces a split in the ecosystem:
you either store `DynamicFunction`, store a string to look up the
function, or force `DynamicFunction` to wrap your generic function
anyways. Or worse yet: have `DynamicFunction` wrap the lookup function
using `FunctionRegistryArc`.
</details>
#### Generic `ArgInfo`
**TL;DR:** Allowing `ArgInfo` and `ReturnInfo` to store the generic
information introduces a footgun when interpreting `FunctionInfo`.
<details>
<summary>Details</summary>
Regardless of how we represent a generic function, one thing is clear:
we need to be able to represent the information for such a function.
This PR does so by introducing a `FunctionInfoType` enum to wrap one or
more `FunctionInfo` values.
Originally, I didn't do this. I had `ArgInfo` and `ReturnInfo` allow for
generic types. This allowed us to have a single `FunctionInfo` to
represent our function, but then I realized that it actually lies about
our function.
If we have two `ArgInfo` that both allow for either `i32` or `u32`, what
does this tell us about our function? It turns out: nothing! We can't
know whether our function takes `(i32, i32)`, `(u32, u32)`, `(i32,
u32)`, or `(u32, i32)`.
It therefore makes more sense to just represent a function with multiple
`FunctionInfo` since that's really what it's made up of.
</details>
#### Flatten `FunctionInfo`
**TL;DR:** Flattening removes additional per-overload information some
users may desire and prevents us from adding more information in the
future.
<details>
<summary>Details</summary>
Why don't we just flatten multiple `FunctionInfo` into just one that can
contain multiple signatures?
This is something we could do, but I decided against it for a few
reasons:
- The only thing we'd be able to get rid of for each signature would be
the `name`. While not enough to not do it, it doesn't really suggest we
*have* to either.
- Some consumers may want access to the names of the functions that make
up the overloaded function. For example, to track a bug where an
undesirable function is being added as an overload. Or to more easily
locate the original function of an overload.
- We may eventually allow for more information to be stored on
`FunctionInfo`. For example, we may allow for documentation to be stored
like we do for `TypeInfo`. Consumers of this documentation may want
access to the documentation of each overload as they may provide
documentation specific to that overload.
</details>
## Testing
This PR adds lots of tests and benchmarks, and also adds to the example.
To run the tests:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features
```
To run the benchmarks:
```
cargo bench --bench reflect_function --all-features
```
To run the example:
```
cargo run --package bevy --example function_reflection --all-features
```
### Benchmarks
One of my goals with this PR was to leave the typical case of
non-overloaded functions largely unaffected by the changes introduced in
this PR. ~~And while the static size of `DynamicFunction` has increased
by 17% (from 136 to 160 bytes), the performance has generally stayed the
same~~ The static size of `DynamicFunction` has decreased from 136 to
112 bytes, while calling performance has generally stayed the same:
| | `main` | 7d293ab |
|
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
bf765e61b5
|
Add no_std support to bevy_reflect (#16256)
# Objective - Contributes to #15460 ## Solution - Added `std` feature (enabled by default) ## Testing - CI - `cargo check -p bevy_reflect --no-default-features --target "x86_64-unknown-none"` - UEFI demo application runs with this branch of `bevy_reflect`, allowing `derive(Reflect)` ## Notes - The [`spin`](https://crates.io/crates/spin) crate has been included to provide `RwLock` and `Once` (as an alternative to `OnceLock`) when the `std` feature is not enabled. Another alternative may be more desirable, please provide feedback if you have a strong opinion here! - Certain items (`Box`, `String`, `ToString`) provided by `alloc` have been added to `__macro_exports` as a way to avoid `alloc` vs `std` namespacing. I'm personally quite annoyed that we can't rely on `alloc` as a crate name in `std` environments within macros. I'd love an alternative to my approach here, but I suspect it's the least-bad option. - I would've liked to have an `alloc` feature (for allocation-free `bevy_reflect`), unfortunately, `erased_serde` unconditionally requires access to `Box`. Maybe one day we could design around this, but for now it just means `bevy_reflect` requires `alloc`. --------- Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
Zachary Harrold
|
d70595b667
|
Add core and alloc over std Lints (#15281)
# 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> |
||
|
Clar Fon
|
efda7f3f9c
|
Simpler lint fixes: makes ci lints work but disables a lint for now (#15376)
Takes the first two commits from #15375 and adds suggestions from this comment: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/15375#issuecomment-2366968300 See #15375 for more reasoning/motivation. ## Rebasing (rerunning) ```rust git switch simpler-lint-fixes git reset --hard main cargo fmt --all -- --unstable-features --config normalize_comments=true,imports_granularity=Crate cargo fmt --all git add --update git commit --message "rustfmt" cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features --fix cargo fmt --all -- --unstable-features --config normalize_comments=true,imports_granularity=Crate cargo fmt --all git add --update git commit --message "clippy" git cherry-pick e6c0b94f6795222310fb812fa5c4512661fc7887 ``` |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
6e95f297ea
|
bevy_reflect: Automatic arg count validation (#15145)
# Objective Functions created into `DynamicFunction[Mut]` do not currently validate the number of arguments they are given before calling the function. I originally did this because I felt users would want to validate this themselves in the function rather than have it be done behind-the-scenes. I'm now realizing, however, that we could remove this boilerplate and if users wanted to check again then they would still be free to do so (it'd be more of a sanity check at that point). ## Solution Automatically validate the number of arguments passed to `DynamicFunction::call` and `DynamicFunctionMut::call[_once]`. This is a pretty trivial change since we just need to compare the length of the `ArgList` to the length of the `[ArgInfo]` in the function's `FunctionInfo`. I also ran the benchmarks just in case and saw no regression by doing this. ## Testing You can test locally by running: ``` cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features ``` |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
59c0521690
|
bevy_reflect: Add Function trait (#15205)
# Objective While #13152 added function reflection, it didn't really make functions reflectable. Instead, it made it so that they can be called with reflected arguments and return reflected data. But functions themselves cannot be reflected. In other words, we can't go from `DynamicFunction` to `dyn PartialReflect`. ## Solution Allow `DynamicFunction` to actually be reflected. This PR adds the `Function` reflection subtrait (and corresponding `ReflectRef`, `ReflectKind`, etc.). With this new trait, we're able to implement `PartialReflect` on `DynamicFunction`. ### Implementors `Function` is currently only implemented for `DynamicFunction<'static>`. This is because we can't implement it generically over all functions—even those that implement `IntoFunction`. What about `DynamicFunctionMut`? Well, this PR does **not** implement `Function` for `DynamicFunctionMut`. The reasons for this are a little complicated, but it boils down to mutability. `DynamicFunctionMut` requires `&mut self` to be invoked since it wraps a `FnMut`. However, we can't really model this well with `Function`. And if we make `DynamicFunctionMut` wrap its internal `FnMut` in a `Mutex` to allow for `&self` invocations, then we run into either concurrency issues or recursion issues (or, in the worst case, both). So for the time-being, we won't implement `Function` for `DynamicFunctionMut`. It will be better to evaluate it on its own. And we may even consider the possibility of removing it altogether if it adds too much complexity to the crate. ### Dynamic vs Concrete One of the issues with `DynamicFunction` is the fact that it's both a dynamic representation (like `DynamicStruct` or `DynamicList`) and the only way to represent a function. Because of this, it's in a weird middle ground where we can't easily implement full-on `Reflect`. That would require `Typed`, but what static `TypeInfo` could it provide? Just that it's a `DynamicFunction`? None of the other dynamic types implement `Typed`. However, by not implementing `Reflect`, we lose the ability to downcast back to our `DynamicStruct`. Our only option is to call `Function::clone_dynamic`, which clones the data rather than by simply downcasting. This works in favor of the `PartialReflect::try_apply` implementation since it would have to clone anyways, but is definitely not ideal. This is also the reason I had to add `Debug` as a supertrait on `Function`. For now, this PR chooses not to implement `Reflect` for `DynamicFunction`. We may want to explore this in a followup PR (or even this one if people feel strongly that it's strictly required). The same is true for `FromReflect`. We may decide to add an implementation there as well, but it's likely out-of-scope of this PR. ## Testing You can test locally by running: ``` cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features ``` --- ## Showcase You can now pass around a `DynamicFunction` as a `dyn PartialReflect`! This also means you can use it as a field on a reflected type without having to ignore it (though you do need to opt out of `FromReflect`). ```rust #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect(from_reflect = false)] struct ClickEvent { callback: DynamicFunction<'static>, } let event: Box<dyn Struct> = Box::new(ClickEvent { callback: (|| println!("Clicked!")).into_function(), }); // We can access our `DynamicFunction` as a `dyn PartialReflect` let callback: &dyn PartialReflect = event.field("callback").unwrap(); // And access function-related methods via the new `Function` trait let ReflectRef::Function(callback) = callback.reflect_ref() else { unreachable!() }; // Including calling the function callback.reflect_call(ArgList::new()).unwrap(); // Prints: Clicked! ``` |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
2b4180ca8f
|
bevy_reflect: Function reflection terminology refactor (#14813)
# Objective One of the changes in #14704 made `DynamicFunction` effectively the same as `DynamicClosure<'static>`. This change meant that the de facto function type would likely be `DynamicClosure<'static>` instead of the intended `DynamicFunction`, since the former is much more flexible. We _could_ explore ways of making `DynamicFunction` implement `Copy` using some unsafe code, but it likely wouldn't be worth it. And users would likely still reach for the convenience of `DynamicClosure<'static>` over the copy-ability of `DynamicFunction`. The goal of this PR is to fix this confusion between the two types. ## Solution Firstly, the `DynamicFunction` type was removed. Again, it was no different than `DynamicClosure<'static>` so it wasn't a huge deal to remove. Secondly, `DynamicClosure<'env>` and `DynamicClosureMut<'env>` were renamed to `DynamicFunction<'env>` and `DynamicFunctionMut<'env>`, respectively. Yes, we still ultimately kept the naming of `DynamicFunction`, but changed its behavior to that of `DynamicClosure<'env>`. We need a term to refer to both functions and closures, and "function" was the best option. [Originally](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1274091992162242710), I was going to go with "callable" as the replacement term to encompass both functions and closures (e.g. `DynamciCallable<'env>`). However, it was [suggested](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1274653581777047625) by @SkiFire13 that the simpler "function" term could be used instead. While "callable" is perhaps the better umbrella term—being truly ambiguous over functions and closures— "function" is more familiar, used more often, easier to discover, and is subjectively just "better-sounding". ## Testing Most changes are purely swapping type names or updating documentation, but you can verify everything still works by running the following command: ``` cargo test --package bevy_reflect ``` |