mirror of
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy
synced 2024-12-25 20:43:07 +00:00
8 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Gino Valente
|
83356b12c9
|
bevy_reflect: Replace "value" terminology with "opaque" (#15240)
# Objective Currently, the term "value" in the context of reflection is a bit overloaded. For one, it can be used synonymously with "data" or "variable". An example sentence would be "this function takes a reflected value". However, it is also used to refer to reflected types which are `ReflectKind::Value`. These types are usually either primitives, opaque types, or types that don't fall into any other `ReflectKind` (or perhaps could, but don't due to some limitation/difficulty). An example sentence would be "this function takes a reflected value type". This makes it difficult to write good documentation or other learning material without causing some amount of confusion to readers. Ideally, we'd be able to move away from the `ReflectKind::Value` usage and come up with a better term. ## Solution This PR replaces the terminology of "value" with "opaque" across `bevy_reflect`. This includes in documentation, type names, variant names, and macros. The term "opaque" was chosen because that's essentially how the type is treated within the reflection API. In other words, its internal structure is hidden. All we can do is work with the type itself. ### Primitives While primitives are not technically opaque types, I think it's still clearer to refer to them as "opaque" rather than keep the confusing "value" terminology. We could consider adding another concept for primitives (e.g. `ReflectKind::Primitive`), but I'm not sure that provides a lot of benefit right now. In most circumstances, they'll be treated just like an opaque type. They would also likely use the same macro (or two copies of the same macro but with different names). ## Testing You can test locally by running: ``` cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features ``` --- ## Migration Guide The reflection concept of "value type" has been replaced with a clearer "opaque type". The following renames have been made to account for this: - `ReflectKind::Value` → `ReflectKind::Opaque` - `ReflectRef::Value` → `ReflectRef::Opaque` - `ReflectMut::Value` → `ReflectMut::Opaque` - `ReflectOwned::Value` → `ReflectOwned::Opaque` - `TypeInfo::Value` → `TypeInfo::Opaque` - `ValueInfo` → `OpaqueInfo` - `impl_reflect_value!` → `impl_reflect_opaque!` - `impl_from_reflect_value!` → `impl_from_reflect_opaque!` Additionally, declaring your own opaque types no longer uses `#[reflect_value]`. This attribute has been replaced by `#[reflect(opaque)]`: ```rust // BEFORE #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect_value(Default)] struct MyOpaqueType(u32); // AFTER #[derive(Reflect)] #[reflect(opaque)] #[reflect(Default)] struct MyOpaqueType(u32); ``` Note that the order in which `#[reflect(opaque)]` appears does not matter. |
||
Benjamin Brienen
|
67615c5051
|
split bevy_reflect::derive::utilities into proper modules (#15354)
# Objective - A utilities module is considered to be a bad practice and poor organization of code, so this fixes it. ## Solution - Split each struct into its own module - Move related lose functions into their own module - Move the last few bits into good places ## Testing - CI --------- Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
Rich Churcher
|
fd329c0426
|
Allow to expect (adopted) (#15301)
# Objective > Rust 1.81 released the #[expect(...)] attribute, which works like #[allow(...)] but throws a warning if the lint isn't raised. This is preferred to #[allow(...)] because it tells us when it can be removed. - Adopts the parts of #15118 that are complete, and updates the branch so it can be merged. - There were a few conflicts, let me know if I misjudged any of 'em. Alice's [recommendation](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/15059#issuecomment-2349263900) seems well-taken, let's do this crate by crate now that @BD103 has done the lion's share of this! (Relates to, but doesn't yet completely finish #15059.) Crates this _doesn't_ cover: - bevy_input - bevy_gilrs - bevy_window - bevy_winit - bevy_state - bevy_render - bevy_picking - bevy_core_pipeline - bevy_sprite - bevy_text - bevy_pbr - bevy_ui - bevy_gltf - bevy_gizmos - bevy_dev_tools - bevy_internal - bevy_dylib --------- Co-authored-by: BD103 <59022059+BD103@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Ben Frankel <ben.frankel7@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Antony <antony.m.3012@gmail.com> |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
6183b56b5d
|
bevy_reflect: Reflect remote types (#6042)
# Objective The goal with this PR is to allow the use of types that don't implement `Reflect` within the reflection API. Rust's [orphan rule](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html#implementing-a-trait-on-a-type) prevents implementing a trait on an external type when neither type nor trait are owned by the implementor. This means that if a crate, `cool_rust_lib`, defines a type, `Foo`, then a user cannot use it with reflection. What this means is that we have to ignore it most of the time: ```rust #[derive(Reflect)] struct SomeStruct { #[reflect(ignore)] data: cool_rust_lib::Foo } ``` Obviously, it's impossible to implement `Reflect` on `Foo`. But does it *have* to be? Most of reflection doesn't deal with concrete types— it's almost all using `dyn Reflect`. And being very metadata-driven, it should theoretically be possible. I mean, [`serde`](https://serde.rs/remote-derive.html) does it. ## Solution > Special thanks to @danielhenrymantilla for their help reviewing this PR and offering wisdom wrt safety. Taking a page out of `serde`'s book, this PR adds the ability to easily use "remote types" with reflection. In this context, a "remote type" is the external type for which we have no ability to implement `Reflect`. This adds the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro, which is used to generate "remote type wrappers". All you have to do is define the wrapper exactly the same as the remote type's definition: ```rust // Pretend this is our external crate mod cool_rust_lib { #[derive(Default)] struct Foo { pub value: String } } #[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)] struct FooWrapper { pub value: String } ``` > **Note:** All fields in the external type *must* be public. This could be addressed with a separate getter/setter attribute either in this PR or in another one. The macro takes this user-defined item and transforms it into a newtype wrapper around the external type, marking it as `#[repr(transparent)]`. The fields/variants defined by the user are simply used to build out the reflection impls. Additionally, it generates an implementation of the new trait, `ReflectRemote`, which helps prevent accidental misuses of this API. Therefore, the output generated by the macro would look something like: ```rust #[repr(transparent)] struct FooWrapper(pub cool_rust_lib::Foo); impl ReflectRemote for FooWrapper { type Remote = cool_rust_lib::Foo; // transmutation methods... } // reflection impls... // these will acknowledge and make use of the `value` field ``` Internally, the reflection API will pass around the `FooWrapper` and [transmute](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/mem/fn.transmute.html) it where necessary. All we have to do is then tell `Reflect` to do that. So rather than ignoring the field, we tell `Reflect` to use our wrapper using the `#[reflect(remote = ...)]` field attribute: ```rust #[derive(Reflect)] struct SomeStruct { #[reflect(remote = FooWrapper)] data: cool_rust_lib::Foo } ``` #### Other Macros & Type Data Because this macro consumes the defined item and generates a new one, we can't just put our macros anywhere. All macros that should be passed to the generated struct need to come *below* this macro. For example, to derive `Default` and register its associated type data: ```rust // ✅ GOOD #[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)] #[derive(Default)] #[reflect(Default)] struct FooWrapper { pub value: String } // ❌ BAD #[derive(Default)] #[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)] #[reflect(Default)] struct FooWrapper { pub value: String } ``` #### Generics Generics are forwarded to the generated struct as well. They should also be defined in the same order: ```rust #[reflect_remote(RemoteGeneric<'a, T1, T2>)] struct GenericWrapper<'a, T1, T2> { pub foo: &'a T1, pub bar: &'a T2, } ``` > Naming does *not* need to match the original definition's. Only order matters here. > Also note that the code above is just a demonstration and doesn't actually compile since we'd need to enforce certain bounds (e.g. `T1: Reflect`, `'a: 'static`, etc.) #### Nesting And, yes, you can nest remote types: ```rust #[reflect_remote(RemoteOuter)] struct OuterWrapper { #[reflect(remote = InnerWrapper)] pub inner: RemoteInner } #[reflect_remote(RemoteInner)] struct InnerWrapper(usize); ``` #### Assertions This macro will also generate some compile-time assertions to ensure that the correct types are used. It's important we catch this early so users don't have to wait for something to panic. And it also helps keep our `unsafe` a little safer. For example, a wrapper definition that does not match its corresponding remote type will result in an error: ```rust mod external_crate { pub struct TheirStruct(pub u32); } #[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirStruct)] struct MyStruct(pub String); // ERROR: expected type `u32` but found `String` ``` <details> <summary>Generated Assertion</summary> ```rust const _: () = { #[allow(non_snake_case)] #[allow(unused_variables)] #[allow(unused_assignments)] #[allow(unreachable_patterns)] #[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)] fn assert_wrapper_definition_matches_remote_type( mut __remote__: external_crate::TheirStruct, ) { __remote__.0 = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<String> { None })().unwrap(); } }; ``` </details> Additionally, using the incorrect type in a `#[reflect(remote = ...)]` attribute should result in an error: ```rust mod external_crate { pub struct TheirFoo(pub u32); pub struct TheirBar(pub i32); } #[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirFoo)] struct MyFoo(pub u32); #[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirBar)] struct MyBar(pub i32); #[derive(Reflect)] struct MyStruct { #[reflect(remote = MyBar)] // ERROR: expected type `TheirFoo` but found struct `TheirBar` foo: external_crate::TheirFoo } ``` <details> <summary>Generated Assertion</summary> ```rust const _: () = { struct RemoteFieldAssertions; impl RemoteFieldAssertions { #[allow(non_snake_case)] #[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)] fn assert__foo__is_valid_remote() { let _: <MyBar as bevy_reflect::ReflectRemote>::Remote = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<external_crate::TheirFoo> { None })().unwrap(); } } }; ``` </details> ### Discussion There are a couple points that I think still need discussion or validation. - [x] 1. `Any` shenanigans ~~If we wanted to downcast our remote type from a `dyn Reflect`, we'd have to first downcast to the wrapper then extract the inner type. This PR has a [commit](b840db9f74cb6d357f951cb11b150d46bac89ee2) that addresses this by making all the `Reflect::*any` methods return the inner type rather than the wrapper type. This allows us to downcast directly to our remote type.~~ ~~However, I'm not sure if this is something we want to do. For unknowing users, it could be confusing and seemingly inconsistent. Is it worth keeping? Or should this behavior be removed?~~ I think this should be fine. The remote wrapper is an implementation detail and users should not need to downcast to the wrapper type. Feel free to let me know if there are other opinions on this though! - [x] 2. Implementing `Deref/DerefMut` and `From` ~~We don't currently do this, but should we implement other traits on the generated transparent struct? We could implement `Deref`/`DerefMut` to easily access the inner type. And we could implement `From` for easier conversion between the two types (e.g. `T: Into<Foo>`).~~ As mentioned in the comments, we probably don't need to do this. Again, the remote wrapper is an implementation detail, and should generally not be used directly. - [x] 3. ~~Should we define a getter/setter field attribute in this PR as well or leave it for a future one?~~ I think this should be saved for a future PR - [ ] 4. Any foreseeable issues with this implementation? #### Alternatives One alternative to defining our own `ReflectRemote` would be to use [bytemuck's `TransparentWrapper`](https://docs.rs/bytemuck/1.13.1/bytemuck/trait.TransparentWrapper.html) (as suggested by @danielhenrymantilla). This is definitely a viable option, as `ReflectRemote` is pretty much the same thing as `TransparentWrapper`. However, the cost would be bringing in a new crate— though, it is already in use in a few other sub-crates like bevy_render. I think we're okay just defining `ReflectRemote` ourselves, but we can go the bytemuck route if we'd prefer offloading that work to another crate. --- ## Changelog * Added the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro to allow `Reflect` to be used on remote types * Added `ReflectRemote` trait for ensuring proper remote wrapper usage |
||
Lura
|
856b39d821
|
Apply Clippy lints regarding lazy evaluation and closures (#14015)
# Objective - Lazily evaluate [default](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/unwrap_or_default)~~/[or](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/or_fun_call)~~ values where it makes sense - ~~`unwrap_or(foo())` -> `unwrap_or_else(|| foo())`~~ - `unwrap_or(Default::default())` -> `unwrap_or_default()` - etc. - Avoid creating [redundant closures](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/redundant_closure), even for [method calls](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/redundant_closure_for_method_calls) - `map(|something| something.into())` -> `map(Into:into)` ## Solution - Apply Clippy lints: - ~~[or_fun_call](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/or_fun_call)~~ - [unwrap_or_default](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/unwrap_or_default) - [redundant_closure_for_method_calls](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/redundant_closure_for_method_calls) ([redundant closures](https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#/redundant_closure) is already enabled) ## Testing - Tested on Windows 11 (`stable-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu`, 1.79.0) - Bevy compiles without errors or warnings and examples seem to work as intended - `cargo clippy` ✅ - `cargo run -p ci -- compile` ✅ --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
5db52663b3
|
bevy_reflect: Custom attributes (#11659)
# 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")]`) |
||
|
Gino Valente
|
705c144259
|
bevy_reflect: Remove ContainerAttributes::merge (#13303)
# Objective Unblocks #11659. Currently the `Reflect` derive macro has to go through a merge process for each `#[reflect]`/`#[reflet_value]` attribute encountered on a container type. Not only is this a bit inefficient, but it also has a soft requirement that we can compare attributes such that an error can be thrown on duplicates, invalid states, etc. While working on #11659 this proved to be challenging due to the fact that `syn` types don't implement `PartialEq` or `Hash` without enabling the `extra-traits` feature. Ideally, we wouldn't have to enable another feature just to accommodate this one use case. ## Solution Removed `ContainerAttributes::merge`. This was a fairly simple change as we could just have the parsing functions take `&mut self` instead of returning `Self`. ## Testing CI should build as there should be no user-facing change. |
||
BD103
|
22305acf66
|
Rename bevy_reflect_derive folder to derive (#13269)
# Objective - Some of the "large" crates have sub-crates, usually for things such as macros. - For an example, see [`bevy_ecs_macros` at `bevy_ecs/macros`]( |
Renamed from crates/bevy_reflect/bevy_reflect_derive/src/derive_data.rs (Browse further)