e5dc177b4b
# Objective
Currently, the observer API looks like this:
```rust
app.add_observer(|trigger: Trigger<Explode>| {
info!("Entity {} exploded!", trigger.target());
});
```
Future plans for observers also include "multi-event observers" with a
trigger that looks like this (see [Cart's
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/14649#issuecomment-2960402508)):
```rust
trigger: Trigger<(
OnAdd<Pressed>,
OnRemove<Pressed>,
OnAdd<InteractionDisabled>,
OnRemove<InteractionDisabled>,
OnInsert<Hovered>,
)>,
```
In scenarios like this, there is a lot of repetition of `On`. These are
expected to be very high-traffic APIs especially in UI contexts, so
ergonomics and readability are critical.
By renaming `Trigger` to `On`, we can make these APIs read more cleanly
and get rid of the repetition:
```rust
app.add_observer(|trigger: On<Explode>| {
info!("Entity {} exploded!", trigger.target());
});
```
```rust
trigger: On<(
Add<Pressed>,
Remove<Pressed>,
Add<InteractionDisabled>,
Remove<InteractionDisabled>,
Insert<Hovered>,
)>,
```
Names like `On<Add<Pressed>>` emphasize the actual event listener nature
more than `Trigger<OnAdd<Pressed>>`, and look cleaner. This *also* frees
up the `Trigger` name if we want to use it for the observer event type,
splitting them out from buffered events (bikeshedding this is out of
scope for this PR though).
For prior art:
[`bevy_eventlistener`](https://github.com/aevyrie/bevy_eventlistener)
used
[`On`](https://docs.rs/bevy_eventlistener/latest/bevy_eventlistener/event_listener/struct.On.html)
for its event listener type. Though in our case, the observer is the
event listener, and `On` is just a type containing information about the
triggered event.
## Solution
Steal from `bevy_event_listener` by @aevyrie and use `On`.
- Rename `Trigger` to `On`
- Rename `OnAdd` to `Add`
- Rename `OnInsert` to `Insert`
- Rename `OnReplace` to `Replace`
- Rename `OnRemove` to `Remove`
- Rename `OnDespawn` to `Despawn`
## Discussion
### Naming Conflicts??
Using a name like `Add` might initially feel like a very bad idea, since
it risks conflict with `core::ops::Add`. However, I don't expect this to
be a big problem in practice.
- You rarely need to actually implement the `Add` trait, especially in
modules that would use the Bevy ECS.
- In the rare cases where you *do* get a conflict, it is very easy to
fix by just disambiguating, for example using `ops::Add`.
- The `Add` event is a struct while the `Add` trait is a trait (duh), so
the compiler error should be very obvious.
For the record, renaming `OnAdd` to `Add`, I got exactly *zero* errors
or conflicts within Bevy itself. But this is of course not entirely
representative of actual projects *using* Bevy.
You might then wonder, why not use `Added`? This would conflict with the
`Added` query filter, so it wouldn't work. Additionally, the current
naming convention for observer events does not use past tense.
### Documentation
This does make documentation slightly more awkward when referring to
`On` or its methods. Previous docs often referred to `Trigger::target`
or "sends a `Trigger`" (which is... a bit strange anyway), which would
now be `On::target` and "sends an observer `Event`".
You can see the diff in this PR to see some of the effects. I think it
should be fine though, we may just need to reword more documentation to
read better.
58 lines
2.2 KiB
Rust
58 lines
2.2 KiB
Rust
//! This example shows how you can know when a [`Component`] has been removed, so you can react to it.
|
|
//!
|
|
//! When a [`Component`] is removed from an [`Entity`], all [`Observer`] with an [`Remove`] trigger for
|
|
//! that [`Component`] will be notified. These observers will be called immediately after the
|
|
//! [`Component`] is removed. For more info on observers, see the
|
|
//! [observers example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/main/examples/ecs/observers.rs).
|
|
//!
|
|
//! Advanced users may also consider using a lifecycle hook
|
|
//! instead of an observer, as it incurs less overhead for a case like this.
|
|
//! See the [component hooks example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/main/examples/ecs/component_hooks.rs).
|
|
use bevy::prelude::*;
|
|
|
|
fn main() {
|
|
App::new()
|
|
.add_plugins(DefaultPlugins)
|
|
.add_systems(Startup, setup)
|
|
// This system will remove a component after two seconds.
|
|
.add_systems(Update, remove_component)
|
|
// This observer will react to the removal of the component.
|
|
.add_observer(react_on_removal)
|
|
.run();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
/// This `struct` is just used for convenience in this example. This is the [`Component`] we'll be
|
|
/// giving to the `Entity` so we have a [`Component`] to remove in `remove_component()`.
|
|
#[derive(Component)]
|
|
struct MyComponent;
|
|
|
|
fn setup(mut commands: Commands, asset_server: Res<AssetServer>) {
|
|
commands.spawn(Camera2d);
|
|
commands.spawn((
|
|
Sprite::from_image(asset_server.load("branding/icon.png")),
|
|
// Add the `Component`.
|
|
MyComponent,
|
|
));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fn remove_component(
|
|
time: Res<Time>,
|
|
mut commands: Commands,
|
|
query: Query<Entity, With<MyComponent>>,
|
|
) {
|
|
// After two seconds have passed the `Component` is removed.
|
|
if time.elapsed_secs() > 2.0 {
|
|
if let Some(entity) = query.iter().next() {
|
|
commands.entity(entity).remove::<MyComponent>();
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
fn react_on_removal(trigger: On<Remove, MyComponent>, mut query: Query<&mut Sprite>) {
|
|
// The `Remove` trigger was automatically called on the `Entity` that had its `MyComponent` removed.
|
|
let entity = trigger.target().unwrap();
|
|
if let Ok(mut sprite) = query.get_mut(entity) {
|
|
sprite.color = Color::srgb(0.5, 1., 1.);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|