Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
//! This example illustrates the use of [`SubStates`] for more complex state handling patterns.
|
|
|
|
//!
|
|
|
|
//! [`SubStates`] are [`States`] that only exist while the App is in another [`State`]. They can
|
|
|
|
//! be used to create more complex patterns while relying on simple enums, or to de-couple certain
|
|
|
|
//! elements of complex state objects.
|
|
|
|
//!
|
|
|
|
//! In this case, we're transitioning from a `Menu` state to an `InGame` state, at which point we create
|
|
|
|
//! a substate called `IsPaused` to track whether the game is paused or not.
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-04 11:44:34 +00:00
|
|
|
use bevy::{dev_tools::states::*, prelude::*};
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
use ui::*;
|
|
|
|
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, Default, Eq, PartialEq, Hash, States)]
|
|
|
|
enum AppState {
|
|
|
|
#[default]
|
|
|
|
Menu,
|
|
|
|
InGame,
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// In this case, instead of deriving `States`, we derive `SubStates`
|
|
|
|
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, Default, Eq, PartialEq, Hash, SubStates)]
|
|
|
|
// And we need to add an attribute to let us know what the source state is
|
|
|
|
// and what value it needs to have. This will ensure that unless we're
|
|
|
|
// in [`AppState::InGame`], the [`IsPaused`] state resource
|
|
|
|
// will not exist.
|
|
|
|
#[source(AppState = AppState::InGame)]
|
|
|
|
enum IsPaused {
|
|
|
|
#[default]
|
|
|
|
Running,
|
|
|
|
Paused,
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn main() {
|
|
|
|
App::new()
|
|
|
|
.add_plugins(DefaultPlugins)
|
|
|
|
.init_state::<AppState>()
|
|
|
|
.add_sub_state::<IsPaused>() // We set the substate up here.
|
|
|
|
// Most of these remain the same
|
|
|
|
.add_systems(Startup, setup)
|
|
|
|
.add_systems(OnEnter(AppState::Menu), setup_menu)
|
|
|
|
.add_systems(Update, menu.run_if(in_state(AppState::Menu)))
|
|
|
|
.add_systems(OnExit(AppState::Menu), cleanup_menu)
|
|
|
|
.add_systems(OnEnter(AppState::InGame), setup_game)
|
|
|
|
.add_systems(OnEnter(IsPaused::Paused), setup_paused_screen)
|
2024-06-04 11:44:34 +00:00
|
|
|
.enable_state_scoped_entities::<IsPaused>()
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
.add_systems(
|
|
|
|
Update,
|
|
|
|
(
|
|
|
|
// Instead of relying on [`AppState::InGame`] here, we're relying on
|
|
|
|
// [`IsPaused::Running`], since we don't want movement or color changes
|
|
|
|
// if we're paused
|
|
|
|
(movement, change_color).run_if(in_state(IsPaused::Running)),
|
|
|
|
// The pause toggle, on the other hand, needs to work whether we're
|
|
|
|
// paused or not, so it uses [`AppState::InGame`] instead.
|
|
|
|
toggle_pause.run_if(in_state(AppState::InGame)),
|
|
|
|
),
|
|
|
|
)
|
2024-06-04 11:44:34 +00:00
|
|
|
.add_systems(Update, log_transitions::<AppState>)
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
.run();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn menu(
|
|
|
|
mut next_state: ResMut<NextState<AppState>>,
|
|
|
|
mut interaction_query: Query<
|
2024-07-03 01:13:55 +00:00
|
|
|
(&Interaction, &mut BackgroundColor),
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
(Changed<Interaction>, With<Button>),
|
|
|
|
>,
|
|
|
|
) {
|
2024-07-03 01:13:55 +00:00
|
|
|
for (interaction, mut color) in &mut interaction_query {
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
match *interaction {
|
|
|
|
Interaction::Pressed => {
|
2024-07-03 01:13:55 +00:00
|
|
|
*color = PRESSED_BUTTON.into();
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
next_state.set(AppState::InGame);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Interaction::Hovered => {
|
2024-07-03 01:13:55 +00:00
|
|
|
*color = HOVERED_BUTTON.into();
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Interaction::None => {
|
2024-07-03 01:13:55 +00:00
|
|
|
*color = NORMAL_BUTTON.into();
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn cleanup_menu(mut commands: Commands, menu_data: Res<MenuData>) {
|
|
|
|
commands.entity(menu_data.button_entity).despawn_recursive();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const SPEED: f32 = 100.0;
|
|
|
|
fn movement(
|
|
|
|
time: Res<Time>,
|
|
|
|
input: Res<ButtonInput<KeyCode>>,
|
|
|
|
mut query: Query<&mut Transform, With<Sprite>>,
|
|
|
|
) {
|
|
|
|
for mut transform in &mut query {
|
|
|
|
let mut direction = Vec3::ZERO;
|
|
|
|
if input.pressed(KeyCode::ArrowLeft) {
|
|
|
|
direction.x -= 1.0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if input.pressed(KeyCode::ArrowRight) {
|
|
|
|
direction.x += 1.0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if input.pressed(KeyCode::ArrowUp) {
|
|
|
|
direction.y += 1.0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if input.pressed(KeyCode::ArrowDown) {
|
|
|
|
direction.y -= 1.0;
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if direction != Vec3::ZERO {
|
|
|
|
transform.translation += direction.normalize() * SPEED * time.delta_seconds();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn change_color(time: Res<Time>, mut query: Query<&mut Sprite>) {
|
|
|
|
for mut sprite in &mut query {
|
|
|
|
let new_color = LinearRgba {
|
|
|
|
blue: (time.elapsed_seconds() * 0.5).sin() + 2.0,
|
|
|
|
..LinearRgba::from(sprite.color)
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprite.color = new_color.into();
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn toggle_pause(
|
|
|
|
input: Res<ButtonInput<KeyCode>>,
|
|
|
|
current_state: Res<State<IsPaused>>,
|
|
|
|
mut next_state: ResMut<NextState<IsPaused>>,
|
|
|
|
) {
|
|
|
|
if input.just_pressed(KeyCode::Space) {
|
|
|
|
next_state.set(match current_state.get() {
|
|
|
|
IsPaused::Running => IsPaused::Paused,
|
|
|
|
IsPaused::Paused => IsPaused::Running,
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
mod ui {
|
|
|
|
use crate::*;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#[derive(Resource)]
|
|
|
|
pub struct MenuData {
|
|
|
|
pub button_entity: Entity,
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pub const NORMAL_BUTTON: Color = Color::srgb(0.15, 0.15, 0.15);
|
|
|
|
pub const HOVERED_BUTTON: Color = Color::srgb(0.25, 0.25, 0.25);
|
|
|
|
pub const PRESSED_BUTTON: Color = Color::srgb(0.35, 0.75, 0.35);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pub fn setup(mut commands: Commands) {
|
|
|
|
commands.spawn(Camera2dBundle::default());
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pub fn setup_menu(mut commands: Commands) {
|
|
|
|
let button_entity = commands
|
|
|
|
.spawn(NodeBundle {
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
style: Style {
|
|
|
|
// center button
|
|
|
|
width: Val::Percent(100.),
|
|
|
|
height: Val::Percent(100.),
|
|
|
|
justify_content: JustifyContent::Center,
|
|
|
|
align_items: AlignItems::Center,
|
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
..default()
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
.with_children(|parent| {
|
|
|
|
parent
|
|
|
|
.spawn(ButtonBundle {
|
|
|
|
style: Style {
|
|
|
|
width: Val::Px(150.),
|
|
|
|
height: Val::Px(65.),
|
|
|
|
// horizontally center child text
|
|
|
|
justify_content: JustifyContent::Center,
|
|
|
|
// vertically center child text
|
|
|
|
align_items: AlignItems::Center,
|
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
},
|
Make default behavior for `BackgroundColor` and `BorderColor` more intuitive (#14017)
# Objective
In Bevy 0.13, `BackgroundColor` simply tinted the image of any
`UiImage`. This was confusing: in every other case (e.g. Text), this
added a solid square behind the element. #11165 changed this, but
removed `BackgroundColor` from `ImageBundle` to avoid confusion, since
the semantic meaning had changed.
However, this resulted in a serious UX downgrade / inconsistency, as
this behavior was no longer part of the bundle (unlike for `TextBundle`
or `NodeBundle`), leaving users with a relatively frustrating upgrade
path.
Additionally, adding both `BackgroundColor` and `UiImage` resulted in a
bizarre effect, where the background color was seemingly ignored as it
was covered by a solid white placeholder image.
Fixes #13969.
## Solution
Per @viridia's design:
> - if you don't specify a background color, it's transparent.
> - if you don't specify an image color, it's white (because it's a
multiplier).
> - if you don't specify an image, no image is drawn.
> - if you specify both a background color and an image color, they are
independent.
> - the background color is drawn behind the image (in whatever pixels
are transparent)
As laid out by @benfrankel, this involves:
1. Changing the default `UiImage` to use a transparent texture but a
pure white tint.
2. Adding `UiImage::solid_color` to quickly set placeholder images.
3. Changing the default `BorderColor` and `BackgroundColor` to
transparent.
4. Removing the default overrides for these values in the other assorted
UI bundles.
5. Adding `BackgroundColor` back to `ImageBundle` and `ButtonBundle`.
6. Adding a 1x1 `Image::transparent`, which can be accessed from
`Assets<Image>` via the `TRANSPARENT_IMAGE_HANDLE` constant.
Huge thanks to everyone who helped out with the design in the linked
issue and [the Discord
thread](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1255209923890118697/1255209999278280844):
this was very much a joint design.
@cart helped me figure out how to set the UiImage's default texture to a
transparent 1x1 image, which is a much nicer fix.
## Testing
I've checked the examples modified by this PR, and the `ui` example as
well just to be sure.
## Migration Guide
- `BackgroundColor` no longer tints the color of images in `ImageBundle`
or `ButtonBundle`. Set `UiImage::color` to tint images instead.
- The default texture for `UiImage` is now a transparent white square.
Use `UiImage::solid_color` to quickly draw debug images.
- The default value for `BackgroundColor` and `BorderColor` is now
transparent. Set the color to white manually to return to previous
behavior.
2024-06-25 21:50:41 +00:00
|
|
|
background_color: NORMAL_BUTTON.into(),
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
.with_children(|parent| {
|
|
|
|
parent.spawn(TextBundle::from_section(
|
|
|
|
"Play",
|
|
|
|
TextStyle {
|
2024-09-16 23:14:37 +00:00
|
|
|
font_size: 33.0,
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
color: Color::srgb(0.9, 0.9, 0.9),
|
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
));
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
.id();
|
|
|
|
commands.insert_resource(MenuData { button_entity });
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pub fn setup_game(mut commands: Commands, asset_server: Res<AssetServer>) {
|
|
|
|
commands.spawn(SpriteBundle {
|
|
|
|
texture: asset_server.load("branding/icon.png"),
|
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pub fn setup_paused_screen(mut commands: Commands) {
|
|
|
|
commands
|
|
|
|
.spawn((
|
2024-06-04 11:44:34 +00:00
|
|
|
StateScoped(IsPaused::Paused),
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
NodeBundle {
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
style: Style {
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
// center button
|
|
|
|
width: Val::Percent(100.),
|
|
|
|
height: Val::Percent(100.),
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
justify_content: JustifyContent::Center,
|
|
|
|
align_items: AlignItems::Center,
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
flex_direction: FlexDirection::Column,
|
|
|
|
row_gap: Val::Px(10.),
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
..default()
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
))
|
|
|
|
.with_children(|parent| {
|
|
|
|
parent
|
|
|
|
.spawn(NodeBundle {
|
|
|
|
style: Style {
|
|
|
|
width: Val::Px(400.),
|
|
|
|
height: Val::Px(400.),
|
|
|
|
// horizontally center child text
|
|
|
|
justify_content: JustifyContent::Center,
|
|
|
|
// vertically center child text
|
|
|
|
align_items: AlignItems::Center,
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
},
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
background_color: NORMAL_BUTTON.into(),
|
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
.with_children(|parent| {
|
|
|
|
parent.spawn(TextBundle::from_section(
|
|
|
|
"Paused",
|
|
|
|
TextStyle {
|
2024-09-16 23:14:37 +00:00
|
|
|
font_size: 33.0,
|
2024-05-03 13:04:14 +00:00
|
|
|
color: Color::srgb(0.9, 0.9, 0.9),
|
|
|
|
..default()
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
));
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
});
|
Computed State & Sub States (#11426)
## Summary/Description
This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state
types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state:
- Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the
[`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the
other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many
simple patterns. See the [state
example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs)
for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in
Bevy.
- [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed
manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if
the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs)
for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs
for more complex scenarios.
- [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide
a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source
states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for
situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary -
such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state
that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state
example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs)
to see a sampling of uses for these states.
# Objective
This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex
state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my
previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching
capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one
instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more
complex ones.
As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change
any other interactions with the state system once you define and add
your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between
`State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end
up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a
risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a
given state.
### Addition - Sub States
closes #9942
After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern
was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were
sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since
`ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates`
are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to
add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was
added here as well. The relevant discussion is here:
https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316
## Solution
closes #11358
The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing
`ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other
states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states
into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the
source states changes.
In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is
implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to
limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable,
preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ComputedStates` trait
- Added `FreelyMutableState` trait
- Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and
`Pending`
- Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for
easily adding derived states to an App.
- Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to
`bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity.
- Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an
`apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have
a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition`
label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions
rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their
computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition`
to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger
dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need
to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition
schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition
schedules and finally enter schedules.
- Added `SubStates` trait
- Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>`
resource doesn't exist
## Migration Guide
If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created
them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants:
- if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use
`NextState::Pending(S)`
- if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use
`NextState::Unchanged`
- if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the
adjustments above
If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should
instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule.
---
## Future Work
There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to
keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope
here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use.
However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to
others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock.
- `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all
utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit
state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves,
right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state
system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different
question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as
it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently
lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it
and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5
- `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry
systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a
`NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend
on the current one.
- More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make
states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes
the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a
state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the
`Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate
it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the
pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could
be implemented in future PRs:
- Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states
that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to
nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states
having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused`
state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying
the `AppState` as needed.
- Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a
`NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then
you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as
needed.
- Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating
states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux.
These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism.
- ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual
states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by
having a computed element that determines whether the state should
exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but
then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature
is now part of this PR. See above.
- Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in
moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out
of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087
As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly
not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential
explorations for the future.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
2024-05-02 19:36:23 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|