# Objective
Entities are unique, however, this is not reflected in the scene format. Currently, entities are stored in a list where a user could inadvertently create a duplicate of the same entity.
## Solution
Switch from the list representation to a map representation for entities.
---
## Changelog
* The `entities` field in the scene format is now a map of entity ID to entity data
## Migration Guide
The scene format now stores its collection of entities in a map rather than a list:
```rust
// OLD
(
entities: [
(
entity: 12,
components: {
"bevy_transform::components::transform::Transform": (
translation: (
x: 0.0,
y: 0.0,
z: 0.0
),
rotation: (0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0),
scale: (
x: 1.0,
y: 1.0,
z: 1.0
),
),
},
),
],
)
// NEW
(
entities: {
12: (
components: {
"bevy_transform::components::transform::Transform": (
translation: (
x: 0.0,
y: 0.0,
z: 0.0
),
rotation: (0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0),
scale: (
x: 1.0,
y: 1.0,
z: 1.0
),
),
},
),
},
)
```
# Objective
Currently scenes define components using a list:
```rust
[
(
entity: 0,
components: [
{
"bevy_transform::components::transform::Transform": (
translation: (
x: 0.0,
y: 0.0,
z: 0.0
),
rotation: (0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0),
scale: (
x: 1.0,
y: 1.0,
z: 1.0
),
),
},
{
"my_crate::Foo": (
text: "Hello World",
),
},
{
"my_crate::Bar": (
baz: 123,
),
},
],
),
]
```
However, this representation has some drawbacks (as pointed out by @Metadorius in [this](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/4561#issuecomment-1202215565) comment):
1. Increased nesting and more characters (minor effect on overall size)
2. More importantly, by definition, entities cannot have more than one instance of any given component. Therefore, such data is best stored as a map— where all values are meant to have unique keys.
## Solution
Change `components` to store a map of components rather than a list:
```rust
[
(
entity: 0,
components: {
"bevy_transform::components::transform::Transform": (
translation: (
x: 0.0,
y: 0.0,
z: 0.0
),
rotation: (0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0),
scale: (
x: 1.0,
y: 1.0,
z: 1.0
),
),
"my_crate::Foo": (
text: "Hello World",
),
"my_crate::Bar": (
baz: 123
),
},
),
]
```
#### Code Representation
This change only affects the scene format itself. `DynamicEntity` still stores its components as a list. The reason for this is that storing such data as a map is not really needed since:
1. The "key" of each value is easily found by just calling `Reflect::type_name` on it
2. We should be generating such structs using the `World` itself which upholds the one-component-per-entity rule
One could in theory create manually create a `DynamicEntity` with duplicate components, but this isn't something I think we should focus on in this PR. `DynamicEntity` can be broken in other ways (i.e. storing a non-component in the components list), and resolving its issues can be done in a separate PR.
---
## Changelog
* The scene format now uses a map to represent the collection of components rather than a list
## Migration Guide
The scene format now uses a map to represent the collection of components. Scene files will need to update from the old list format.
<details>
<summary>Example Code</summary>
```rust
// OLD
[
(
entity: 0,
components: [
{
"bevy_transform::components::transform::Transform": (
translation: (
x: 0.0,
y: 0.0,
z: 0.0
),
rotation: (0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0),
scale: (
x: 1.0,
y: 1.0,
z: 1.0
),
),
},
{
"my_crate::Foo": (
text: "Hello World",
),
},
{
"my_crate::Bar": (
baz: 123,
),
},
],
),
]
// NEW
[
(
entity: 0,
components: {
"bevy_transform::components::transform::Transform": (
translation: (
x: 0.0,
y: 0.0,
z: 0.0
),
rotation: (0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0),
scale: (
x: 1.0,
y: 1.0,
z: 1.0
),
),
"my_crate::Foo": (
text: "Hello World",
),
"my_crate::Bar": (
baz: 123
),
},
),
]
```
</details>
# Objective
Scenes are currently represented as a list of entities. This is all we need currently, but we may want to add more data to this format in the future (metadata, asset lists, etc.).
It would be nice to update the format in preparation of possible future changes. Doing so now (i.e., before 0.9) could mean reduced[^1] breakage for things added in 0.10.
[^1]: Obviously, adding features runs the risk of breaking things regardless. But if all features added are for whatever reason optional or well-contained, then users should at least have an easier time updating.
## Solution
Made the scene root a struct rather than a list.
```rust
(
entities: [
// Entity data here...
]
)
```
---
## Changelog
* The scene format now puts the entity list in a newly added `entities` field, rather than having it be the root object
## Migration Guide
The scene file format now uses a struct as the root object rather than a list of entities. The list of entities is now found in the `entities` field of this struct.
```rust
// OLD
[
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
// NEW
(
entities: [
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
)
```
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
> 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.
I noticed the following error when trying out the `scene` example
```bash
Feb 13 22:11:13.997 WARN bevy_asset::asset_server: encountered an error while loading an asset: No registration found for glam::f32::vec3::Vec3
```
This PR fixes the error and makes the scene file load correctly
