# Objective
Currently, reflecting a generic type provides no information about the
generic parameters. This means that you can't get access to the type of
`T` in `Foo<T>` without creating custom type data (we do this for
[`ReflectHandle`](https://docs.rs/bevy/0.14.2/bevy/asset/struct.ReflectHandle.html#method.asset_type_id)).
## Solution
This PR makes it so that generic type parameters and generic const
parameters are tracked in a `Generics` struct stored on the `TypeInfo`
for a type.
For example, `struct Foo<T, const N: usize>` will store `T` and `N` as a
`TypeParamInfo` and `ConstParamInfo`, respectively.
The stored information includes:
- The name of the generic parameter (i.e. `T`, `N`, etc.)
- The type of the generic parameter (remember that we're dealing with
monomorphized types, so this will actually be a concrete type)
- The default type/value, if any (e.g. `f32` in `T = f32` or `10` in
`const N: usize = 10`)
### Caveats
The only requirement for this to work is that the user does not opt-out
of the automatic `TypePath` derive with `#[reflect(type_path = false)]`.
Doing so prevents the macro code from 100% knowing that the generic type
implements `TypePath`. This in turn means the generated `Typed` impl
can't add generics to the type.
There are two solutions for this—both of which I think we should explore
in a future PR:
1. We could just not use `TypePath`. This would mean that we can't store
the `Type` of the generic, but we can at least store the `TypeId`.
2. We could provide a way to opt out of the automatic `Typed` derive
with a `#[reflect(typed = false)]` attribute. This would allow users to
manually implement `Typed` to add whatever generic information they need
(e.g. skipping a parameter that can't implement `TypePath` while the
rest can).
I originally thought about making `Generics` an enum with `Generic`,
`NonGeneric`, and `Unavailable` variants to signify whether there are
generics, no generics, or generics that cannot be added due to opting
out of `TypePath`. I ultimately decided against this as I think it adds
a bit too much complexity for such an uncommon problem.
Additionally, user's don't necessarily _have_ to know the generics of a
type, so just skipping them should generally be fine for now.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Showcase
You can now access generic parameters via `TypeInfo`!
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyStruct<T, const N: usize>([T; N]);
let generics = MyStruct::<f32, 10>::type_info().generics();
// Get by index:
let t = generics.get(0).unwrap();
assert_eq!(t.name(), "T");
assert!(t.ty().is::<f32>());
assert!(!t.is_const());
// Or by name:
let n = generics.get_named("N").unwrap();
assert_eq!(n.name(), "N");
assert!(n.ty().is::<usize>());
assert!(n.is_const());
```
You can even access parameter defaults:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyStruct<T = String, const N: usize = 10>([T; N]);
let generics = MyStruct::<f32, 5>::type_info().generics();
let GenericInfo::Type(info) = generics.get_named("T").unwrap() else {
panic!("expected a type parameter");
};
let default = info.default().unwrap();
assert!(default.is::<String>());
let GenericInfo::Const(info) = generics.get_named("N").unwrap() else {
panic!("expected a const parameter");
};
let default = info.default().unwrap();
assert_eq!(default.downcast_ref::<usize>().unwrap(), &10);
```
397f20e835