# Objective
Implement FromIterator/IntoIterator for dynamic types where missing
Note:
- can't impl `IntoIterator` for `&Array` & co because of orphan rules
- `into_iter().collect()` is a no-op for `Vec`s because of
specialization
---
## Migration Guide
- Change `DynamicArray::from_vec` to `DynamicArray::from_iter`
# Objective
Function reflection requires a lot of macro code generation in the form
of several `all_tuples!` invocations, as well as impls generated in the
`Reflect` derive macro.
Seeing as function reflection is currently a bit more niche, it makes
sense to gate it all behind a feature.
## Solution
Add a `functions` feature to `bevy_reflect`, which can be enabled in
Bevy using the `reflect_functions` feature.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
That should ensure that everything still works with the feature
disabled.
To test with the feature on, you can run:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect --features functions
```
---
## Changelog
- Moved function reflection behind a Cargo feature
(`bevy/reflect_functions` and `bevy_reflect/functions`)
- Add `IntoFunction` export in `bevy_reflect::prelude`
## Internal Migration Guide
> [!important]
> Function reflection was introduced as part of the 0.15 dev cycle. This
migration guide was written for developers relying on `main` during this
cycle, and is not a breaking change coming from 0.14.
Function reflection is now gated behind a feature. To use function
reflection, enable the feature:
- If using `bevy_reflect` directly, enable the `functions` feature
- If using `bevy`, enable the `reflect_functions` feature
# Objective
We're able to reflect types sooooooo... why not functions?
The goal of this PR is to make functions callable within a dynamic
context, where type information is not readily available at compile
time.
For example, if we have a function:
```rust
fn add(left: i32, right: i32) -> i32 {
left + right
}
```
And two `Reflect` values we've already validated are `i32` types:
```rust
let left: Box<dyn Reflect> = Box::new(2_i32);
let right: Box<dyn Reflect> = Box::new(2_i32);
```
We should be able to call `add` with these values:
```rust
// ?????
let result: Box<dyn Reflect> = add.call_dynamic(left, right);
```
And ideally this wouldn't just work for functions, but methods and
closures too!
Right now, users have two options:
1. Manually parse the reflected data and call the function themselves
2. Rely on registered type data to handle the conversions for them
For a small function like `add`, this isn't too bad. But what about for
more complex functions? What about for many functions?
At worst, this process is error-prone. At best, it's simply tedious.
And this is assuming we know the function at compile time. What if we
want to accept a function dynamically and call it with our own
arguments?
It would be much nicer if `bevy_reflect` could alleviate some of the
problems here.
## Solution
Added function reflection!
This adds a `DynamicFunction` type to wrap a function dynamically. This
can be called with an `ArgList`, which is a dynamic list of
`Reflect`-containing `Arg` arguments. It returns a `FunctionResult`
which indicates whether or not the function call succeeded, returning a
`Reflect`-containing `Return` type if it did succeed.
Many functions can be converted into this `DynamicFunction` type thanks
to the `IntoFunction` trait.
Taking our previous `add` example, this might look something like
(explicit types added for readability):
```rust
fn add(left: i32, right: i32) -> i32 {
left + right
}
let mut function: DynamicFunction = add.into_function();
let args: ArgList = ArgList::new().push_owned(2_i32).push_owned(2_i32);
let result: Return = function.call(args).unwrap();
let value: Box<dyn Reflect> = result.unwrap_owned();
assert_eq!(value.take::<i32>().unwrap(), 4);
```
And it also works on closures:
```rust
let add = |left: i32, right: i32| left + right;
let mut function: DynamicFunction = add.into_function();
let args: ArgList = ArgList::new().push_owned(2_i32).push_owned(2_i32);
let result: Return = function.call(args).unwrap();
let value: Box<dyn Reflect> = result.unwrap_owned();
assert_eq!(value.take::<i32>().unwrap(), 4);
```
As well as methods:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo(i32);
impl Foo {
fn add(&mut self, value: i32) {
self.0 += value;
}
}
let mut foo = Foo(2);
let mut function: DynamicFunction = Foo::add.into_function();
let args: ArgList = ArgList::new().push_mut(&mut foo).push_owned(2_i32);
function.call(args).unwrap();
assert_eq!(foo.0, 4);
```
### Limitations
While this does cover many functions, it is far from a perfect system
and has quite a few limitations. Here are a few of the limitations when
using `IntoFunction`:
1. The lifetime of the return value is only tied to the lifetime of the
first argument (useful for methods). This means you can't have a
function like `(a: i32, b: &i32) -> &i32` without creating the
`DynamicFunction` manually.
2. Only 15 arguments are currently supported. If the first argument is a
(mutable) reference, this number increases to 16.
3. Manual implementations of `Reflect` will need to implement the new
`FromArg`, `GetOwnership`, and `IntoReturn` traits in order to be used
as arguments/return types.
And some limitations of `DynamicFunction` itself:
1. All arguments share the same lifetime, or rather, they will shrink to
the shortest lifetime.
2. Closures that capture their environment may need to have their
`DynamicFunction` dropped before accessing those variables again (there
is a `DynamicFunction::call_once` to make this a bit easier)
3. All arguments and return types must implement `Reflect`. While not a
big surprise coming from `bevy_reflect`, this implementation could
actually still work by swapping `Reflect` out with `Any`. Of course,
that makes working with the arguments and return values a bit harder.
4. Generic functions are not supported (unless they have been manually
monomorphized)
And general, reflection gotchas:
1. `&str` does not implement `Reflect`. Rather, `&'static str`
implements `Reflect` (the same is true for `&Path` and similar types).
This means that `&'static str` is considered an "owned" value for the
sake of generating arguments. Additionally, arguments and return types
containing `&str` will assume it's `&'static str`, which is almost never
the desired behavior. In these cases, the only solution (I believe) is
to use `&String` instead.
### Followup Work
This PR is the first of two PRs I intend to work on. The second PR will
aim to integrate this new function reflection system into the existing
reflection traits and `TypeInfo`. The goal would be to register and call
a reflected type's methods dynamically.
I chose not to do that in this PR since the diff is already quite large.
I also want the discussion for both PRs to be focused on their own
implementation.
Another followup I'd like to do is investigate allowing common container
types as a return type, such as `Option<&[mut] T>` and `Result<&[mut] T,
E>`. This would allow even more functions to opt into this system. I
chose to not include it in this one, though, for the same reasoning as
previously mentioned.
### Alternatives
One alternative I had considered was adding a macro to convert any
function into a reflection-based counterpart. The idea would be that a
struct that wraps the function would be created and users could specify
which arguments and return values should be `Reflect`. It could then be
called via a new `Function` trait.
I think that could still work, but it will be a fair bit more involved,
requiring some slightly more complex parsing. And it of course is a bit
more work for the user, since they need to create the type via macro
invocation.
It also makes registering these functions onto a type a bit more
complicated (depending on how it's implemented).
For now, I think this is a fairly simple, yet powerful solution that
provides the least amount of friction for users.
---
## Showcase
Bevy now adds support for storing and calling functions dynamically
using reflection!
```rust
// 1. Take a standard Rust function
fn add(left: i32, right: i32) -> i32 {
left + right
}
// 2. Convert it into a type-erased `DynamicFunction` using the `IntoFunction` trait
let mut function: DynamicFunction = add.into_function();
// 3. Define your arguments from reflected values
let args: ArgList = ArgList::new().push_owned(2_i32).push_owned(2_i32);
// 4. Call the function with your arguments
let result: Return = function.call(args).unwrap();
// 5. Extract the return value
let value: Box<dyn Reflect> = result.unwrap_owned();
assert_eq!(value.take::<i32>().unwrap(), 4);
```
## Changelog
#### TL;DR
- Added support for function reflection
- Added a new `Function Reflection` example:
ba727898f2/examples/reflection/function_reflection.rs (L1-L157)
#### Details
Added the following items:
- `ArgError` enum
- `ArgId` enum
- `ArgInfo` struct
- `ArgList` struct
- `Arg` enum
- `DynamicFunction` struct
- `FromArg` trait (derived with `derive(Reflect)`)
- `FunctionError` enum
- `FunctionInfo` struct
- `FunctionResult` alias
- `GetOwnership` trait (derived with `derive(Reflect)`)
- `IntoFunction` trait (with blanket implementation)
- `IntoReturn` trait (derived with `derive(Reflect)`)
- `Ownership` enum
- `ReturnInfo` struct
- `Return` enum
---------
Co-authored-by: Periwink <charlesbour@gmail.com>
# Objective
As work on the editor starts to ramp up, it might be nice to start
allowing types to specify custom attributes. These can be used to
provide certain functionality to fields, such as ranges or controlling
how data is displayed.
A good example of this can be seen in
[`bevy-inspector-egui`](https://github.com/jakobhellermann/bevy-inspector-egui)
with its
[`InspectorOptions`](https://docs.rs/bevy-inspector-egui/0.22.1/bevy_inspector_egui/struct.InspectorOptions.html):
```rust
#[derive(Reflect, Default, InspectorOptions)]
#[reflect(InspectorOptions)]
struct Slider {
#[inspector(min = 0.0, max = 1.0)]
value: f32,
}
```
Normally, as demonstrated in the example above, these attributes are
handled by a derive macro and stored in a corresponding `TypeData`
struct (i.e. `ReflectInspectorOptions`).
Ideally, we would have a good way of defining this directly via
reflection so that users don't need to create and manage a whole proc
macro just to allow these sorts of attributes.
And note that this doesn't have to just be for inspectors and editors.
It can be used for things done purely on the code side of things.
## Solution
Create a new method for storing attributes on fields via the `Reflect`
derive.
These custom attributes are stored in type info (e.g. `NamedField`,
`StructInfo`, etc.).
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Slider {
#[reflect(@0.0..=1.0)]
value: f64,
}
let TypeInfo::Struct(info) = Slider::type_info() else {
panic!("expected struct info");
};
let field = info.field("value").unwrap();
let range = field.get_attribute::<RangeInclusive<f64>>().unwrap();
assert_eq!(*range, 0.0..=1.0);
```
## TODO
- [x] ~~Bikeshed syntax~~ Went with a type-based approach, prefixed by
`@` for ease of parsing and flexibility
- [x] Add support for custom struct/tuple struct field attributes
- [x] Add support for custom enum variant field attributes
- [x] ~~Add support for custom enum variant attributes (maybe?)~~ ~~Will
require a larger refactor. Can be saved for a future PR if we really
want it.~~ Actually, we apparently still have support for variant
attributes despite not using them, so it was pretty easy to add lol.
- [x] Add support for custom container attributes
- [x] Allow custom attributes to store any reflectable value (not just
`Lit`)
- [x] ~~Store attributes in registry~~ This PR used to store these in
attributes in the registry, however, it has since switched over to
storing them in type info
- [x] Add example
## Bikeshedding
> [!note]
> This section was made for the old method of handling custom
attributes, which stored them by name (i.e. `some_attribute = 123`). The
PR has shifted away from that, to a more type-safe approach.
>
> This section has been left for reference.
There are a number of ways we can syntactically handle custom
attributes. Feel free to leave a comment on your preferred one! Ideally
we want one that is clear, readable, and concise since these will
potentially see _a lot_ of use.
Below is a small, non-exhaustive list of them. Note that the
`skip_serializing` reflection attribute is added to demonstrate how each
case plays with existing reflection attributes.
<details>
<summary>List</summary>
##### 1. `@(name = value)`
> The `@` was chosen to make them stand out from other attributes and
because the "at" symbol is a subtle pneumonic for "attribute". Of
course, other symbols could be used (e.g. `$`, `#`, etc.).
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Slider {
#[reflect(@(min = 0.0, max = 1.0), skip_serializing)]
#[[reflect(@(bevy_editor::hint = "Range: 0.0 to 1.0"))]
value: f32,
}
```
##### 2. `@name = value`
> This is my personal favorite.
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Slider {
#[reflect(@min = 0.0, @max = 1.0, skip_serializing)]
#[[reflect(@bevy_editor::hint = "Range: 0.0 to 1.0")]
value: f32,
}
```
##### 3. `custom_attr(name = value)`
> `custom_attr` can be anything. Other possibilities include `with` or
`tag`.
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Slider {
#[reflect(custom_attr(min = 0.0, max = 1.0), skip_serializing)]
#[[reflect(custom_attr(bevy_editor::hint = "Range: 0.0 to 1.0"))]
value: f32,
}
```
##### 4. `reflect_attr(name = value)`
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Slider {
#[reflect(skip_serializing)]
#[reflect_attr(min = 0.0, max = 1.0)]
#[[reflect_attr(bevy_editor::hint = "Range: 0.0 to 1.0")]
value: f32,
}
```
</details>
---
## Changelog
- Added support for custom attributes on reflected types (i.e.
`#[reflect(@Foo::new("bar")]`)
# Objective
Fixes #13230
## Solution
Uses solution described in #13230
They mention a worry about adding a branch, but I'm not sure there is
one.
This code
```Rust
#[no_mangle]
pub fn next_if_some(num: i32, b: Option<bool>) -> i32 {
num + b.is_some() as i32
}
```
produces this assembly with opt-level 3
```asm
next_if_some:
xor eax, eax
cmp sil, 2
setne al
add eax, edi
ret
```
## Testing
Added test from #13230, tagged it as ignore as it is only useful in
release mode and very slow if you accidentally invoke it in debug mode.
---
## Changelog
Iterationg of ListIter will no longer overflow and wrap around
## Migration Guide
# Objective
Finish the `try_apply` implementation started in #6770 by @feyokorenhof.
Supersedes and closes#6770. Closes#6182
## Solution
Add `try_apply` to `Reflect` and implement it in all the places that
implement `Reflect`.
---
## Changelog
Added `try_apply` to `Reflect`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Feyo Korenhof <feyokorenhof@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
Fix https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/11657
## Solution
Add a `ReflectKind` enum, add `Reflect::reflect_kind` which returns a
`ReflectKind`, and add `kind` method implementions to `ReflectRef`,
`ReflectMut`, and `ReflectOwned`, which returns a `ReflectKind`.
I also changed `AccessError` to use this new struct instead of it's own
`TypeKind` struct.
---
## Changelog
- Added `ReflectKind`, an enumeration over the kinds of a reflected type
without its data.
- Added `Reflect::reflect_kind` (with default implementation)
- Added implementation for the `kind` method on `ReflectRef`,
`ReflectMut`, and `ReflectOwned` which gives their kind without any
information, as a `ReflectKind`
# Objective
- Make the implementation order consistent between all sources to fit
the order in the trait.
## Solution
- Change the implementation order.
# Objective
Printing `DynamicStruct` with a debug format does not show the contained
type anymore. For instance, in `examples/reflection/reflection.rs`,
adding `dbg!(&reflect_value);` to line 96 will print:
```rust
[examples/reflection/reflection.rs:96] &reflect_value = DynamicStruct(bevy_reflect::DynamicStruct {
a: 4,
nested: DynamicStruct(bevy_reflect::DynamicStruct {
b: 8,
}),
})
```
## Solution
Show the represented type instead (`reflection::Foo` and
`reflection::Bar` in this case):
```rust
[examples/reflection/reflection.rs:96] &reflect_value = DynamicStruct(reflection::Foo {
a: 4,
nested: DynamicStruct(reflection::Bar {
b: 8,
}),
})
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
- Shorten paths by removing unnecessary prefixes
## Solution
- Remove the prefixes from many paths which do not need them. Finding
the paths was done automatically using built-in refactoring tools in
Jetbrains RustRover.
# Objective
Fixes#5101
Alternative to #6511
## Solution
Corrected the behavior for ignored fields in `FromReflect`, which was
previously using the incorrect field indexes.
Similarly, fields marked with `#[reflect(skip_serializing)]` no longer
break when using `FromReflect` after deserialization. This was done by
modifying `SerializationData` to store a function pointer that can later
be used to generate a default instance of the skipped field during
deserialization.
The function pointer points to a function generated by the derive macro
using the behavior designated by `#[reflect(default)]` (or just
`Default` if none provided). The entire output of the macro is now
wrapped in an [unnamed
constant](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/items/constant-items.html#unnamed-constant)
which keeps this behavior hygienic.
#### Rationale
The biggest downside to this approach is that it requires fields marked
`#[reflect(skip_serializing)]` to provide the ability to create a
default instance— either via a `Default` impl or by specifying a custom
one. While this isn't great, I think it might be justified by the fact
that we really need to create this value when using `FromReflect` on a
deserialized object. And we need to do this _during_ deserialization
because after that (at least for tuples and tuple structs) we lose
information about which field is which: _"is the value at index 1 in
this `DynamicTupleStruct` the actual value for index 1 or is it really
the value for index 2 since index 1 is skippable...?"_
#### Alternatives
An alternative would be to store `Option<Box<dyn Reflect>>` within
`DynamicTuple` and `DynamicTupleStruct` instead of just `Box<dyn
Reflect>`. This would allow us to insert "empty"/"missing" fields during
deserialization, thus saving the positional information of the skipped
fields. However, this may require changing the API of `Tuple` and
`TupleStruct` such that they can account for their dynamic counterparts
returning `None` for a skipped field. In practice this would probably
mean exposing the `Option`-ness of the dynamics onto implementors via
methods like `Tuple::drain` or `TupleStruct::field`.
Personally, I think requiring `Default` would be better than muddying up
the API to account for these special cases. But I'm open to trying out
this other approach if the community feels that it's better.
---
## Changelog
### Public Changes
#### Fixed
- The behaviors of `#[reflect(ignore)]` and
`#[reflect(skip_serializing)]` are no longer dependent on field order
#### Changed
- Fields marked with `#[reflect(skip_serializing)]` now need to either
implement `Default` or specify a custom default function using
`#[reflect(default = "path::to::some_func")]`
- Deserializing a type with fields marked `#[reflect(skip_serializing)]`
will now include that field initialized to its specified default value
- `SerializationData::new` now takes the new `SkippedField` struct along
with the skipped field index
- Renamed `SerializationData::is_ignored_field` to
`SerializationData::is_field_skipped`
#### Added
- Added `SkippedField` struct
- Added methods `SerializationData::generate_default` and
`SerializationData::iter_skipped`
### Internal Changes
#### Changed
- Replaced `members_to_serialization_denylist` and `BitSet<u32>` with
`SerializationDataDef`
- The `Reflect` derive is more hygienic as it now outputs within an
[unnamed
constant](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/items/constant-items.html#unnamed-constant)
- `StructField::index` has been split up into
`StructField::declaration_index` and `StructField::reflection_index`
#### Removed
- Removed `bitset` dependency
## Migration Guide
* Fields marked `#[reflect(skip_serializing)]` now must implement
`Default` or specify a custom default function with `#[reflect(default =
"path::to::some_func")]`
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyStruct {
#[reflect(skip_serializing)]
#[reflect(default = "get_foo_default")]
foo: Foo, // <- `Foo` does not impl `Default` so requires a custom
function
#[reflect(skip_serializing)]
bar: Bar, // <- `Bar` impls `Default`
}
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo(i32);
#[derive(Reflect, Default)]
struct Bar(i32);
fn get_foo_default() -> Foo {
Foo(123)
}
```
* `SerializationData::new` has been changed to expect an iterator of
`(usize, SkippedField)` rather than one of just `usize`
```rust
// BEFORE
SerializationData::new([0, 3].into_iter());
// AFTER
SerializationData::new([
(0, SkippedField::new(field_0_default_fn)),
(3, SkippedField::new(field_3_default_fn)),
].into_iter());
```
* `Serialization::is_ignored_field` has been renamed to
`Serialization::is_field_skipped`
* Fields marked `#[reflect(skip_serializing)]` are now included in
deserialization output. This may affect logic that expected those fields
to be absent.
# Objective
- Followup to #7184.
- ~Deprecate `TypeUuid` and remove its internal references.~ No longer
part of this PR.
- Use `TypePath` for the type registry, and (de)serialisation instead of
`std::any::type_name`.
- Allow accessing type path information behind proxies.
## Solution
- Introduce methods on `TypeInfo` and friends for dynamically querying
type path. These methods supersede the old `type_name` methods.
- Remove `Reflect::type_name` in favor of `DynamicTypePath::type_path`
and `TypeInfo::type_path_table`.
- Switch all uses of `std::any::type_name` in reflection, non-debugging
contexts to use `TypePath`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `TypePathTable` for dynamically accessing methods on `TypePath`
through `TypeInfo` and the type registry.
- Removed `type_name` from all `TypeInfo`-like structs.
- Added `type_path` and `type_path_table` methods to all `TypeInfo`-like
structs.
- Removed `Reflect::type_name` in favor of
`DynamicTypePath::reflect_type_path` and `TypeInfo::type_path`.
- Changed the signature of all `DynamicTypePath` methods to return
strings with a static lifetime.
## Migration Guide
- Rely on `TypePath` instead of `std::any::type_name` for all stability
guarantees and for use in all reflection contexts, this is used through
with one of the following APIs:
- `TypePath::type_path` if you have a concrete type and not a value.
- `DynamicTypePath::reflect_type_path` if you have an `dyn Reflect`
value without a concrete type.
- `TypeInfo::type_path` for use through the registry or if you want to
work with the represented type of a `DynamicFoo`.
- Remove `type_name` from manual `Reflect` implementations.
- Use `type_path` and `type_path_table` in place of `type_name` on
`TypeInfo`-like structs.
- Use `get_with_type_path(_mut)` over `get_with_type_name(_mut)`.
## Note to reviewers
I think if anything we were a little overzealous in merging #7184 and we
should take that extra care here.
In my mind, this is the "point of no return" for `TypePath` and while I
think we all agree on the design, we should carefully consider if the
finer details and current implementations are actually how we want them
moving forward.
For example [this incorrect `TypePath` implementation for
`String`](3fea3c6c0b/crates/bevy_reflect/src/impls/std.rs (L90))
(note that `String` is in the default Rust prelude) snuck in completely
under the radar.
Followup to #7184
This makes `Reflect: DynamicTypePath` which allows us to remove
`Reflect::get_type_path`, reducing unnecessary codegen and simplifying
`Reflect` implementations.
# Objective
- Introduce a stable alternative to
[`std::any::type_name`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/any/fn.type_name.html).
- Rewrite of #5805 with heavy inspiration in design.
- On the path to #5830.
- Part of solving #3327.
## Solution
- Add a `TypePath` trait for static stable type path/name information.
- Add a `TypePath` derive macro.
- Add a `impl_type_path` macro for implementing internal and foreign
types in `bevy_reflect`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `TypePath` trait.
- Added `DynamicTypePath` trait and `get_type_path` method to `Reflect`.
- Added a `TypePath` derive macro.
- Added a `bevy_reflect::impl_type_path` for implementing `TypePath` on
internal and foreign types in `bevy_reflect`.
- Changed `bevy_reflect::utility::(Non)GenericTypeInfoCell` to
`(Non)GenericTypedCell<T>` which allows us to be generic over both
`TypeInfo` and `TypePath`.
- `TypePath` is now a supertrait of `Asset`, `Material` and
`Material2d`.
- `impl_reflect_struct` needs a `#[type_path = "..."]` attribute to be
specified.
- `impl_reflect_value` needs to either specify path starting with a
double colon (`::core::option::Option`) or an `in my_crate::foo`
declaration.
- Added `bevy_reflect_derive::ReflectTypePath`.
- Most uses of `Ident` in `bevy_reflect_derive` changed to use
`ReflectTypePath`.
## Migration Guide
- Implementors of `Asset`, `Material` and `Material2d` now also need to
derive `TypePath`.
- Manual implementors of `Reflect` will need to implement the new
`get_type_path` method.
## Open Questions
- [x] ~This PR currently does not migrate any usages of
`std::any::type_name` to use `bevy_reflect::TypePath` to ease the review
process. Should it?~ Migration will be left to a follow-up PR.
- [ ] This PR adds a lot of `#[derive(TypePath)]` and `T: TypePath` to
satisfy new bounds, mostly when deriving `TypeUuid`. Should we make
`TypePath` a supertrait of `TypeUuid`? [Should we remove `TypeUuid` in
favour of
`TypePath`?](2afbd85532 (r961067892))
# Objective
> This PR is based on discussion from #6601
The Dynamic types (e.g. `DynamicStruct`, `DynamicList`, etc.) act as
both:
1. Dynamic containers which may hold any arbitrary data
2. Proxy types which may represent any other type
Currently, the only way we can represent the proxy-ness of a Dynamic is
by giving it a name.
```rust
// This is just a dynamic container
let mut data = DynamicStruct::default();
// This is a "proxy"
data.set_name(std::any::type_name::<Foo>());
```
This type name is the only way we check that the given Dynamic is a
proxy of some other type. When we need to "assert the type" of a `dyn
Reflect`, we call `Reflect::type_name` on it. However, because we're
only using a string to denote the type, we run into a few gotchas and
limitations.
For example, hashing a Dynamic proxy may work differently than the type
it proxies:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect, Hash)]
#[reflect(Hash)]
struct Foo(i32);
let concrete = Foo(123);
let dynamic = concrete.clone_dynamic();
let concrete_hash = concrete.reflect_hash();
let dynamic_hash = dynamic.reflect_hash();
// The hashes are not equal because `concrete` uses its own `Hash` impl
// while `dynamic` uses a reflection-based hashing algorithm
assert_ne!(concrete_hash, dynamic_hash);
```
Because the Dynamic proxy only knows about the name of the type, it's
unaware of any other information about it. This means it also differs on
`Reflect::reflect_partial_eq`, and may include ignored or skipped fields
in places the concrete type wouldn't.
## Solution
Rather than having Dynamics pass along just the type name of proxied
types, we can instead have them pass around the `TypeInfo`.
Now all Dynamic types contain an `Option<&'static TypeInfo>` rather than
a `String`:
```diff
pub struct DynamicTupleStruct {
- type_name: String,
+ represented_type: Option<&'static TypeInfo>,
fields: Vec<Box<dyn Reflect>>,
}
```
By changing `Reflect::get_type_info` to
`Reflect::represented_type_info`, hopefully we make this behavior a
little clearer. And to account for `None` values on these dynamic types,
`Reflect::represented_type_info` now returns `Option<&'static
TypeInfo>`.
```rust
let mut data = DynamicTupleStruct::default();
// Not proxying any specific type
assert!(dyn_tuple_struct.represented_type_info().is_none());
let type_info = <Foo as Typed>::type_info();
dyn_tuple_struct.set_represented_type(Some(type_info));
// Alternatively:
// let dyn_tuple_struct = foo.clone_dynamic();
// Now we're proxying `Foo`
assert!(dyn_tuple_struct.represented_type_info().is_some());
```
This means that we can have full access to all the static type
information for the proxied type. Future work would include
transitioning more static type information (trait impls, attributes,
etc.) over to the `TypeInfo` so it can actually be utilized by Dynamic
proxies.
### Alternatives & Rationale
> **Note**
> These alternatives were written when this PR was first made using a
`Proxy` trait. This trait has since been removed.
<details>
<summary>View</summary>
#### Alternative: The `Proxy<T>` Approach
I had considered adding something like a `Proxy<T>` type where `T` would
be the Dynamic and would contain the proxied type information.
This was nice in that it allows us to explicitly determine whether
something is a proxy or not at a type level. `Proxy<DynamicStruct>`
proxies a struct. Makes sense.
The reason I didn't go with this approach is because (1) tuples, (2)
complexity, and (3) `PartialReflect`.
The `DynamicTuple` struct allows us to represent tuples at runtime. It
also allows us to do something you normally can't with tuples: add new
fields. Because of this, adding a field immediately invalidates the
proxy (e.g. our info for `(i32, i32)` doesn't apply to `(i32, i32,
NewField)`). By going with this PR's approach, we can just remove the
type info on `DynamicTuple` when that happens. However, with the
`Proxy<T>` approach, it becomes difficult to represent this behavior—
we'd have to completely control how we access data for `T` for each `T`.
Secondly, it introduces some added complexities (aside from the manual
impls for each `T`). Does `Proxy<T>` impl `Reflect`? Likely yes, if we
want to represent it as `dyn Reflect`. What `TypeInfo` do we give it?
How would we forward reflection methods to the inner type (remember, we
don't have specialization)? How do we separate this from Dynamic types?
And finally, how do all this in a way that's both logical and intuitive
for users?
Lastly, introducing a `Proxy` trait rather than a `Proxy<T>` struct is
actually more inline with the [Unique Reflect
RFC](https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/pull/56). In a way, the `Proxy`
trait is really one part of the `PartialReflect` trait introduced in
that RFC (it's technically not in that RFC but it fits well with it),
where the `PartialReflect` serves as a way for proxies to work _like_
concrete types without having full access to everything a concrete
`Reflect` type can do. This would help bridge the gap between the
current state of the crate and the implementation of that RFC.
All that said, this is still a viable solution. If the community
believes this is the better path forward, then we can do that instead.
These were just my reasons for not initially going with it in this PR.
#### Alternative: The Type Registry Approach
The `Proxy` trait is great and all, but how does it solve the original
problem? Well, it doesn't— yet!
The goal would be to start moving information from the derive macro and
its attributes to the generated `TypeInfo` since these are known
statically and shouldn't change. For example, adding `ignored: bool` to
`[Un]NamedField` or a list of impls.
However, there is another way of storing this information. This is, of
course, one of the uses of the `TypeRegistry`. If we're worried about
Dynamic proxies not aligning with their concrete counterparts, we could
move more type information to the registry and require its usage.
For example, we could replace `Reflect::reflect_hash(&self)` with
`Reflect::reflect_hash(&self, registry: &TypeRegistry)`.
That's not the _worst_ thing in the world, but it is an ergonomics loss.
Additionally, other attributes may have their own requirements, further
restricting what's possible without the registry. The `Reflect::apply`
method will require the registry as well now. Why? Well because the
`map_apply` function used for the `Reflect::apply` impls on `Map` types
depends on `Map::insert_boxed`, which (at least for `DynamicMap`)
requires `Reflect::reflect_hash`. The same would apply when adding
support for reflection-based diffing, which will require
`Reflect::reflect_partial_eq`.
Again, this is a totally viable alternative. I just chose not to go with
it for the reasons above. If we want to go with it, then we can close
this PR and we can pursue this alternative instead.
#### Downsides
Just to highlight a quick potential downside (likely needs more
investigation): retrieving the `TypeInfo` requires acquiring a lock on
the `GenericTypeInfoCell` used by the `Typed` impls for generic types
(non-generic types use a `OnceBox which should be faster). I am not sure
how much of a performance hit that is and will need to run some
benchmarks to compare against.
</details>
### Open Questions
1. Should we use `Cow<'static, TypeInfo>` instead? I think that might be
easier for modding? Perhaps, in that case, we need to update
`Typed::type_info` and friends as well?
2. Are the alternatives better than the approach this PR takes? Are
there other alternatives?
---
## Changelog
### Changed
- `Reflect::get_type_info` has been renamed to
`Reflect::represented_type_info`
- This method now returns `Option<&'static TypeInfo>` rather than just
`&'static TypeInfo`
### Added
- Added `Reflect::is_dynamic` method to indicate when a type is dynamic
- Added a `set_represented_type` method on all dynamic types
### Removed
- Removed `TypeInfo::Dynamic` (use `Reflect::is_dynamic` instead)
- Removed `Typed` impls for all dynamic types
## Migration Guide
- The Dynamic types no longer take a string type name. Instead, they
require a static reference to `TypeInfo`:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyTupleStruct(f32, f32);
let mut dyn_tuple_struct = DynamicTupleStruct::default();
dyn_tuple_struct.insert(1.23_f32);
dyn_tuple_struct.insert(3.21_f32);
// BEFORE:
let type_name = std::any::type_name::<MyTupleStruct>();
dyn_tuple_struct.set_name(type_name);
// AFTER:
let type_info = <MyTupleStruct as Typed>::type_info();
dyn_tuple_struct.set_represented_type(Some(type_info));
```
- `Reflect::get_type_info` has been renamed to
`Reflect::represented_type_info` and now also returns an
`Option<&'static TypeInfo>` (instead of just `&'static TypeInfo`):
```rust
// BEFORE:
let info: &'static TypeInfo = value.get_type_info();
// AFTER:
let info: &'static TypeInfo = value.represented_type_info().unwrap();
```
- `TypeInfo::Dynamic` and `DynamicInfo` has been removed. Use
`Reflect::is_dynamic` instead:
```rust
// BEFORE:
if matches!(value.get_type_info(), TypeInfo::Dynamic) {
// ...
}
// AFTER:
if value.is_dynamic() {
// ...
}
```
---------
Co-authored-by: radiish <cb.setho@gmail.com>
# Objective
`bevy_reflect` can be a moderately complex crate to try and understand. It has many moving parts, a handful of gotchas, and a few subtle contracts that aren't immediately obvious to users and even other contributors.
The current README does an okay job demonstrating how the crate can be used. However, the crate's actual documentation should give a better overview of the crate, its inner-workings, and show some of its own examples.
## Solution
Added crate-level documentation that attempts to summarize the main parts of `bevy_reflect` into small sections.
This PR also updates the documentation for:
- `Reflect`
- `FromReflect`
- The reflection subtraits
- Other important types and traits
- The reflection macros (including the derive macros)
- Crate features
### Open Questions
1. ~~Should I update the docs for the Dynamic types? I was originally going to, but I'm getting a little concerned about the size of this PR 😅~~ Decided to not do this in this PR. It'll be better served from its own PR.
2. Should derive macro documentation be moved to the trait itself? This could improve visibility and allow for better doc links, but could also clutter up the trait's documentation (as well as not being on the actual derive macro's documentation).
### TODO
- [ ] ~~Document Dynamic types (?)~~ I think this should be done in a separate PR.
- [x] Document crate features
- [x] Update docs for `GetTypeRegistration`
- [x] Update docs for `TypeRegistration`
- [x] Update docs for `derive_from_reflect`
- [x] Document `reflect_trait`
- [x] Document `impl_reflect_value`
- [x] Document `impl_from_reflect_value`
---
## Changelog
- Updated documentation across the `bevy_reflect` crate
- Removed `#[module]` helper attribute for `Reflect` derives (this is not currently used)
## Migration Guide
- Removed `#[module]` helper attribute for `Reflect` derives. If your code is relying on this attribute, please replace it with either `#[reflect]` or `#[reflect_value]` (dependent on use-case).
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
Using `Reflect` we can easily switch between a specific reflection trait object, such as a `dyn Struct`, to a `dyn Reflect` object via `Reflect::as_reflect` or `Reflect::as_reflect_mut`.
```rust
fn do_something(value: &dyn Reflect) {/* ... */}
let foo: Box<dyn Struct> = Box::new(Foo::default());
do_something(foo.as_reflect());
```
However, there is no way to convert a _boxed_ reflection trait object to a `Box<dyn Reflect>`.
## Solution
Add a `Reflect::into_reflect` method which allows converting a boxed reflection trait object back into a boxed `Reflect` trait object.
```rust
fn do_something(value: Box<dyn Reflect>) {/* ... */}
let foo: Box<dyn Struct> = Box::new(Foo::default());
do_something(foo.into_reflect());
```
---
## Changelog
- Added `Reflect::into_reflect`
# Objective
There is no way to gen an owned value of `Reflect`.
## Solution
Add it! This was originally a part of #6421, but @MrGVSV asked me to create a separate for it to implement reflect diffing.
---
## Changelog
### Added
- `Reflect::reflect_owned` to get an owned version of `Reflect`.
# Objective
Resolves#6197
Make it so that doc comments can be retrieved via reflection.
## Solution
Adds the new `documentation` feature to `bevy_reflect` (disabled by default).
When enabled, documentation can be found using `TypeInfo::doc` for reflected types:
```rust
/// Some struct.
///
/// # Example
///
/// ```ignore
/// let some_struct = SomeStruct;
/// ```
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct;
let info = <SomeStruct as Typed>::type_info();
assert_eq!(
Some(" Some struct.\n\n # Example\n\n ```ignore\n let some_struct = SomeStruct;\n ```"),
info.docs()
);
```
### Notes for Reviewers
The bulk of the files simply added the same 16 lines of code (with slightly different documentation). Most of the real changes occur in the `bevy_reflect_derive` files as well as in the added tests.
---
## Changelog
* Added `documentation` feature to `bevy_reflect`
* Added `TypeInfo::docs` method (and similar methods for all info types)
> Note: This is rebased off #4561 and can be viewed as a competitor to that PR. See `Comparison with #4561` section for details.
# Objective
The current serialization format used by `bevy_reflect` is both verbose and error-prone. Taking the following structs[^1] for example:
```rust
// -- src/inventory.rs
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Inventory {
id: String,
max_storage: usize,
items: Vec<Item>
}
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Item {
name: String
}
```
Given an inventory of a single item, this would serialize to something like:
```rust
// -- assets/inventory.ron
{
"type": "my_game::inventory::Inventory",
"struct": {
"id": {
"type": "alloc::string::String",
"value": "inv001",
},
"max_storage": {
"type": "usize",
"value": 10
},
"items": {
"type": "alloc::vec::Vec<alloc::string::String>",
"list": [
{
"type": "my_game::inventory::Item",
"struct": {
"name": {
"type": "alloc::string::String",
"value": "Pickaxe"
},
},
},
],
},
},
}
```
Aside from being really long and difficult to read, it also has a few "gotchas" that users need to be aware of if they want to edit the file manually. A major one is the requirement that you use the proper keys for a given type. For structs, you need `"struct"`. For lists, `"list"`. For tuple structs, `"tuple_struct"`. And so on.
It also ***requires*** that the `"type"` entry come before the actual data. Despite being a map— which in programming is almost always orderless by default— the entries need to be in a particular order. Failure to follow the ordering convention results in a failure to deserialize the data.
This makes it very prone to errors and annoyances.
## Solution
Using #4042, we can remove a lot of the boilerplate and metadata needed by this older system. Since we now have static access to type information, we can simplify our serialized data to look like:
```rust
// -- assets/inventory.ron
{
"my_game::inventory::Inventory": (
id: "inv001",
max_storage: 10,
items: [
(
name: "Pickaxe"
),
],
),
}
```
This is much more digestible and a lot less error-prone (no more key requirements and no more extra type names).
Additionally, it is a lot more familiar to users as it follows conventional serde mechanics. For example, the struct is represented with `(...)` when serialized to RON.
#### Custom Serialization
Additionally, this PR adds the opt-in ability to specify a custom serde implementation to be used rather than the one created via reflection. For example[^1]:
```rust
// -- src/inventory.rs
#[derive(Reflect, Serialize)]
#[reflect(Serialize)]
struct Item {
#[serde(alias = "id")]
name: String
}
```
```rust
// -- assets/inventory.ron
{
"my_game::inventory::Inventory": (
id: "inv001",
max_storage: 10,
items: [
(
id: "Pickaxe"
),
],
),
},
```
By allowing users to define their own serialization methods, we do two things:
1. We give more control over how data is serialized/deserialized to the end user
2. We avoid having to re-define serde's attributes and forcing users to apply both (e.g. we don't need a `#[reflect(alias)]` attribute).
### Improved Formats
One of the improvements this PR provides is the ability to represent data in ways that are more conventional and/or familiar to users. Many users are familiar with RON so here are some of the ways we can now represent data in RON:
###### Structs
```js
{
"my_crate::Foo": (
bar: 123
)
}
// OR
{
"my_crate::Foo": Foo(
bar: 123
)
}
```
<details>
<summary>Old Format</summary>
```js
{
"type": "my_crate::Foo",
"struct": {
"bar": {
"type": "usize",
"value": 123
}
}
}
```
</details>
###### Tuples
```js
{
"(f32, f32)": (1.0, 2.0)
}
```
<details>
<summary>Old Format</summary>
```js
{
"type": "(f32, f32)",
"tuple": [
{
"type": "f32",
"value": 1.0
},
{
"type": "f32",
"value": 2.0
}
]
}
```
</details>
###### Tuple Structs
```js
{
"my_crate::Bar": ("Hello World!")
}
// OR
{
"my_crate::Bar": Bar("Hello World!")
}
```
<details>
<summary>Old Format</summary>
```js
{
"type": "my_crate::Bar",
"tuple_struct": [
{
"type": "alloc::string::String",
"value": "Hello World!"
}
]
}
```
</details>
###### Arrays
It may be a bit surprising to some, but arrays now also use the tuple format. This is because they essentially _are_ tuples (a sequence of values with a fixed size), but only allow for homogenous types. Additionally, this is how RON handles them and is probably a result of the 32-capacity limit imposed on them (both by [serde](https://docs.rs/serde/latest/serde/trait.Serialize.html#impl-Serialize-for-%5BT%3B%2032%5D) and by [bevy_reflect](https://docs.rs/bevy/latest/bevy/reflect/trait.GetTypeRegistration.html#impl-GetTypeRegistration-for-%5BT%3B%2032%5D)).
```js
{
"[i32; 3]": (1, 2, 3)
}
```
<details>
<summary>Old Format</summary>
```js
{
"type": "[i32; 3]",
"array": [
{
"type": "i32",
"value": 1
},
{
"type": "i32",
"value": 2
},
{
"type": "i32",
"value": 3
}
]
}
```
</details>
###### Enums
To make things simple, I'll just put a struct variant here, but the style applies to all variant types:
```js
{
"my_crate::ItemType": Consumable(
name: "Healing potion"
)
}
```
<details>
<summary>Old Format</summary>
```js
{
"type": "my_crate::ItemType",
"enum": {
"variant": "Consumable",
"struct": {
"name": {
"type": "alloc::string::String",
"value": "Healing potion"
}
}
}
}
```
</details>
### Comparison with #4561
This PR is a rebased version of #4561. The reason for the split between the two is because this PR creates a _very_ different scene format. You may notice that the PR descriptions for either PR are pretty similar. This was done to better convey the changes depending on which (if any) gets merged first. If #4561 makes it in first, I will update this PR description accordingly.
---
## Changelog
* Re-worked serialization/deserialization for reflected types
* Added `TypedReflectDeserializer` for deserializing data with known `TypeInfo`
* Renamed `ReflectDeserializer` to `UntypedReflectDeserializer`
* ~~Replaced usages of `deserialize_any` with `deserialize_map` for non-self-describing formats~~ Reverted this change since there are still some issues that need to be sorted out (in a separate PR). By reverting this, crates like `bincode` can throw an error when attempting to deserialize non-self-describing formats (`bincode` results in `DeserializeAnyNotSupported`)
* Structs, tuples, tuple structs, arrays, and enums are now all de/serialized using conventional serde methods
## Migration Guide
* This PR reduces the verbosity of the scene format. Scenes will need to be updated accordingly:
```js
// Old format
{
"type": "my_game::item::Item",
"struct": {
"id": {
"type": "alloc::string::String",
"value": "bevycraft:stone",
},
"tags": {
"type": "alloc::vec::Vec<alloc::string::String>",
"list": [
{
"type": "alloc::string::String",
"value": "material"
},
],
},
}
// New format
{
"my_game::item::Item": (
id: "bevycraft:stone",
tags: ["material"]
)
}
```
[^1]: Some derives omitted for brevity.
# Objective
Currently, `Reflect` is unsafe to implement because of a contract in which `any` and `any_mut` must return `self`, or `downcast` will cause UB. This PR makes `Reflect` safe, makes `downcast` not use unsafe, and eliminates this contract.
## Solution
This PR adds a method to `Reflect`, `any`. It also renames the old `any` to `as_any`.
`any` now takes a `Box<Self>` and returns a `Box<dyn Any>`.
---
## Changelog
### Added:
- `any()` method
- `represents()` method
### Changed:
- `Reflect` is now a safe trait
- `downcast()` is now safe
- The old `any` is now called `as_any`, and `any_mut` is now `as_mut_any`
## Migration Guide
- Reflect derives should not have to change anything
- Manual reflect impls will need to remove the `unsafe` keyword, add `any()` implementations, and rename the old `any` and `any_mut` to `as_any` and `as_mut_any`.
- Calls to `any`/`any_mut` must be changed to `as_any`/`as_mut_any`
## Points of discussion:
- Should renaming `any` be avoided and instead name the new method `any_box`?
- ~~Could there be a performance regression from avoiding the unsafe? I doubt it, but this change does seem to introduce redundant checks.~~
- ~~Could/should `is` and `type_id()` be implemented differently? For example, moving `is` onto `Reflect` as an `fn(&self, TypeId) -> bool`~~
Co-authored-by: PROMETHIA-27 <42193387+PROMETHIA-27@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
> Resolves#4504
It can be helpful to have access to type information without requiring an instance of that type. Especially for `Reflect`, a lot of the gathered type information is known at compile-time and should not necessarily require an instance.
## Solution
Created a dedicated `TypeInfo` enum to store static type information. All types that derive `Reflect` now also implement the newly created `Typed` trait:
```rust
pub trait Typed: Reflect {
fn type_info() -> &'static TypeInfo;
}
```
> Note: This trait was made separate from `Reflect` due to `Sized` restrictions.
If you only have access to a `dyn Reflect`, just call `.get_type_info()` on it. This new trait method on `Reflect` should return the same value as if you had called it statically.
If all you have is a `TypeId` or type name, you can get the `TypeInfo` directly from the registry using the `TypeRegistry::get_type_info` method (assuming it was registered).
### Usage
Below is an example of working with `TypeInfo`. As you can see, we don't have to generate an instance of `MyTupleStruct` in order to get this information.
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyTupleStruct(usize, i32, MyStruct);
let info = MyTupleStruct::type_info();
if let TypeInfo::TupleStruct(info) = info {
assert!(info.is::<MyTupleStruct>());
assert_eq!(std::any::type_name::<MyTupleStruct>(), info.type_name());
assert!(info.field_at(1).unwrap().is::<i32>());
} else {
panic!("Expected `TypeInfo::TupleStruct`");
}
```
### Manual Implementations
It's not recommended to manually implement `Typed` yourself, but if you must, you can use the `TypeInfoCell` to automatically create and manage the static `TypeInfo`s for you (which is very helpful for blanket/generic impls):
```rust
use bevy_reflect::{Reflect, TupleStructInfo, TypeInfo, UnnamedField};
use bevy_reflect::utility::TypeInfoCell;
struct Foo<T: Reflect>(T);
impl<T: Reflect> Typed for Foo<T> {
fn type_info() -> &'static TypeInfo {
static CELL: TypeInfoCell = TypeInfoCell::generic();
CELL.get_or_insert::<Self, _>(|| {
let fields = [UnnamedField:🆕:<T>()];
let info = TupleStructInfo:🆕:<Self>(&fields);
TypeInfo::TupleStruct(info)
})
}
}
```
## Benefits
One major benefit is that this opens the door to other serialization methods. Since we can get all the type info at compile time, we can know how to properly deserialize something like:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyType {
foo: usize,
bar: Vec<String>
}
// RON to be deserialized:
(
type: "my_crate::MyType", // <- We now know how to deserialize the rest of this object
value: {
// "foo" is a value type matching "usize"
"foo": 123,
// "bar" is a list type matching "Vec<String>" with item type "String"
"bar": ["a", "b", "c"]
}
)
```
Not only is this more compact, but it has better compatibility (we can change the type of `"foo"` to `i32` without having to update our serialized data).
Of course, serialization/deserialization strategies like this may need to be discussed and fully considered before possibly making a change. However, we will be better equipped to do that now that we can access type information right from the registry.
## Discussion
Some items to discuss:
1. Duplication. There's a bit of overlap with the existing traits/structs since they require an instance of the type while the type info structs do not (for example, `Struct::field_at(&self, index: usize)` and `StructInfo::field_at(&self, index: usize)`, though only `StructInfo` is accessible without an instance object). Is this okay, or do we want to handle it in another way?
2. Should `TypeInfo::Dynamic` be removed? Since the dynamic types don't have type information available at runtime, we could consider them `TypeInfo::Value`s (or just even just `TypeInfo::Struct`). The intention with `TypeInfo::Dynamic` was to keep the distinction from these dynamic types and actual structs/values since users might incorrectly believe the methods of the dynamic type's info struct would map to some contained data (which isn't possible statically).
4. General usefulness of this change, including missing/unnecessary parts.
5. Possible changes to the scene format? (One possible issue with changing it like in the example above might be that we'd have to be careful when handling generic or trait object types.)
## Compile Tests
I ran a few tests to compare compile times (as suggested [here](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/4042#discussion_r876408143)). I toggled `Reflect` and `FromReflect` derive macros using `cfg_attr` for both this PR (aa5178e773) and main (c309acd432).
<details>
<summary>See More</summary>
The test project included 250 of the following structs (as well as a few other structs):
```rust
#[derive(Default)]
#[cfg_attr(feature = "reflect", derive(Reflect))]
#[cfg_attr(feature = "from_reflect", derive(FromReflect))]
pub struct Big001 {
inventory: Inventory,
foo: usize,
bar: String,
baz: ItemDescriptor,
items: [Item; 20],
hello: Option<String>,
world: HashMap<i32, String>,
okay: (isize, usize, /* wesize */),
nope: ((String, String), (f32, f32)),
blah: Cow<'static, str>,
}
```
> I don't know if the compiler can optimize all these duplicate structs away, but I think it's fine either way. We're comparing times, not finding the absolute worst-case time.
I only ran each build 3 times using `cargo build --timings` (thank you @devil-ira), each of which were preceeded by a `cargo clean --package bevy_reflect_compile_test`.
Here are the times I got:
| Test | Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Average |
| -------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------- |
| Main | 1.7s | 3.1s | 1.9s | 2.33s |
| Main + `Reflect` | 8.3s | 8.6s | 8.1s | 8.33s |
| Main + `Reflect` + `FromReflect` | 11.6s | 11.8s | 13.8s | 12.4s |
| PR | 3.5s | 1.8s | 1.9s | 2.4s |
| PR + `Reflect` | 9.2s | 8.8s | 9.3s | 9.1s |
| PR + `Reflect` + `FromReflect` | 12.9s | 12.3s | 12.5s | 12.56s |
</details>
---
## Future Work
Even though everything could probably be made `const`, we unfortunately can't. This is because `TypeId::of::<T>()` is not yet `const` (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/77125). When it does get stabilized, it would probably be worth coming back and making things `const`.
Co-authored-by: MrGVSV <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
Debugging reflected types can be somewhat frustrating since all `dyn Reflect` trait objects return something like `Reflect(core::option::Option<alloc::string::String>)`.
It would be much nicer to be able to see the actual value— or even use a custom `Debug` implementation.
## Solution
Added `Reflect::debug` which allows users to customize the debug output. It sets defaults for all `ReflectRef` subtraits and falls back to `Reflect(type_name)` if no `Debug` implementation was registered.
To register a custom `Debug` impl, users can add `#[reflect(Debug)]` like they can with other traits.
### Example
Using the following structs:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
pub struct Foo {
a: usize,
nested: Bar,
#[reflect(ignore)]
_ignored: NonReflectedValue,
}
#[derive(Reflect)]
pub struct Bar {
value: Vec2,
tuple_value: (i32, String),
list_value: Vec<usize>,
// We can't determine debug formatting for Option<T> yet
unknown_value: Option<String>,
custom_debug: CustomDebug
}
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(Debug)]
struct CustomDebug;
impl Debug for CustomDebug {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
write!(f, "This is a custom debug!")
}
}
pub struct NonReflectedValue {
_a: usize,
}
```
We can do:
```rust
let value = Foo {
a: 1,
_ignored: NonReflectedValue { _a: 10 },
nested: Bar {
value: Vec2::new(1.23, 3.21),
tuple_value: (123, String::from("Hello")),
list_value: vec![1, 2, 3],
unknown_value: Some(String::from("World")),
custom_debug: CustomDebug
},
};
let reflected_value: &dyn Reflect = &value;
println!("{:#?}", reflected_value)
```
Which results in:
```rust
Foo {
a: 2,
nested: Bar {
value: Vec2(
1.23,
3.21,
),
tuple_value: (
123,
"Hello",
),
list_value: [
1,
2,
3,
],
unknown_value: Reflect(core::option::Option<alloc::string::String>),
custom_debug: This is a custom debug!,
},
}
```
Notice that neither `Foo` nor `Bar` implement `Debug`, yet we can still deduce it. This might be a concern if we're worried about leaking internal values. If it is, we might want to consider a way to exclude fields (possibly with a `#[reflect(hide)]` macro) or make it purely opt in (as opposed to the default implementation automatically handled by ReflectRef subtraits).
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
Quick followup to #4712.
While updating some [other PRs](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/4218), I realized the `ReflectTraits` struct could be improved. The issue with the current implementation is that `ReflectTraits::get_xxx_impl(...)` returns just the _logic_ to the corresponding `Reflect` trait method, rather than the entire function.
This makes it slightly more annoying to manage since the variable names need to be consistent across files. For example, `get_partial_eq_impl` uses a `value` variable. But the name "value" isn't defined in the `get_partial_eq_impl` method, it's defined in three other methods in a completely separate file.
It's not likely to cause any bugs if we keep it as it is since differing variable names will probably just result in a compile error (except in very particular cases). But it would be useful to someone who wanted to edit/add/remove a method.
## Solution
Made `get_hash_impl`, `get_partial_eq_impl` and `get_serialize_impl` return the entire method implementation for `reflect_hash`, `reflect_partial_eq`, and `serializable`, respectively.
As a result of this, those three `Reflect` methods were also given default implementations. This was fairly simple to do since all three could just be made to return `None`.
---
## Changelog
* Small cleanup/refactor to `ReflectTraits` in `bevy_reflect_derive`
* Gave `Reflect::reflect_hash`, `Reflect::reflect_partial_eq`, and `Reflect::serializable` default implementations
# Objective
Trait objects that have `Reflect` as a supertrait cannot be upcast to a `dyn Reflect`.
Attempting something like:
```rust
trait MyTrait: Reflect {
// ...
}
fn foo(value: &dyn MyTrait) {
let reflected = value as &dyn Reflect; // Error!
// ...
}
```
Results in `error[E0658]: trait upcasting coercion is experimental`.
The reason this is important is that a lot of `bevy_reflect` methods require a `&dyn Reflect`. This is trivial with concrete types, but if we don't know the concrete type (we only have the trait object), we can't use these methods. For example, we couldn't create a `ReflectSerializer` for the type since it expects a `&dyn Reflect` value— even though we should be able to.
## Solution
Add `as_reflect` and `as_reflect_mut` to `Reflect` to allow upcasting to a `dyn Reflect`:
```rust
trait MyTrait: Reflect {
// ...
}
fn foo(value: &dyn MyTrait) {
let reflected = value.as_reflect();
// ...
}
```
## Alternatives
We could defer this type of logic to the crate/user. They can add these methods to their trait in the same exact way we do here. The main benefit of doing it ourselves is it makes things convenient for them (especially when using the derive macro).
We could also create an `AsReflect` trait with a blanket impl over all reflected types, however, I could not get that to work for trait objects since they aren't sized.
---
## Changelog
- Added trait method `Reflect::as_reflect(&self)`
- Added trait method `Reflect::as_reflect_mut(&mut self)`
## Migration Guide
- Manual implementors of `Reflect` will need to add implementations for the methods above (this should be pretty easy as most cases just need to return `self`)
What is says on the tin.
This has got more to do with making `clippy` slightly more *quiet* than it does with changing anything that might greatly impact readability or performance.
that said, deriving `Default` for a couple of structs is a nice easy win
This adds documentation for:
- The trait methods of `Reflect` and its subtraits
- The `partial_eq` and `apply` functions for `Map` et al.
- `DynamicList` and `DynamicMap`
- `TypeRegistry` and related types & traits
- `GetPath`, including an explanation of path string syntax
among other things.
Still to be documented are the various macros and `bevy_reflect::serde`.
# Objective
These traits are undocumented on `main`.
## Solution
Now they have docs! Included are examples for each trait and their corresponding `GetTypeField` trait. The docs also mention that `#[derive(Reflect)]` will automatically derive the correct subtrait on structs and tuple structs.
After #1697 I looked at all other Iterators from Bevy and added overrides for `size_hint` where it wasn't done.
Also implemented `ExactSizeIterator` where applicable.
Fixes#1100
Implementors must make sure that `Reflect::any` and `Reflect::any_mut` both return the `self` reference passed in (both for logical correctness and downcast safety).
* Rename reflect 'hash' method to 'reflect_hash' to avoid colliding with std:#️⃣:Hash::hash to resolve#943.
* Rename partial_eq to reflect_partial_eq to avoid collisions with implementations of PartialEq on primitives.
