mirror of
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy
synced 2024-12-23 03:23:20 +00:00
10 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Gino Valente
|
aa241672e1
|
bevy_reflect: Nested TypeInfo getters (#13321)
# Objective
Right now, `TypeInfo` can be accessed directly from a type using either
`Typed::type_info` or `Reflect::get_represented_type_info`.
However, once that `TypeInfo` is accessed, any nested types must be
accessed via the `TypeRegistry`.
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo {
bar: usize
}
let registry = TypeRegistry::default();
let TypeInfo::Struct(type_info) = Foo::type_info() else {
panic!("expected struct info");
};
let field = type_info.field("bar").unwrap();
let field_info = registry.get_type_info(field.type_id()).unwrap();
assert!(field_info.is::<usize>());;
```
## Solution
Enable nested types within a `TypeInfo` to be retrieved directly.
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo {
bar: usize
}
let TypeInfo::Struct(type_info) = Foo::type_info() else {
panic!("expected struct info");
};
let field = type_info.field("bar").unwrap();
let field_info = field.type_info().unwrap();
assert!(field_info.is::<usize>());;
```
The particular implementation was chosen for two reasons.
Firstly, we can't just store `TypeInfo` inside another `TypeInfo`
directly. This is because some types are recursive and would result in a
deadlock when trying to create the `TypeInfo` (i.e. it has to create the
`TypeInfo` before it can use it, but it also needs the `TypeInfo` before
it can create it). Therefore, we must instead store the function so it
can be retrieved lazily.
I had considered also using a `OnceLock` or something to lazily cache
the info, but I figured we can look into optimizations later. The API
should remain the same with or without the `OnceLock`.
Secondly, a new wrapper trait had to be introduced: `MaybeTyped`. Like
`RegisterForReflection`, this trait is `#[doc(hidden)]` and only exists
so that we can properly handle dynamic type fields without requiring
them to implement `Typed`. We don't want dynamic types to implement
`Typed` due to the fact that it would make the return type
`Option<&'static TypeInfo>` for all types even though only the dynamic
types ever need to return `None` (see #6971 for details).
Users should never have to interact with this trait as it has a blanket
impl for all `Typed` types. And `Typed` is automatically implemented
when deriving `Reflect` (as it is required).
The one downside is we do need to return `Option<&'static TypeInfo>`
from all these new methods so that we can handle the dynamic cases. If
we didn't have to, we'd be able to get rid of the `Option` entirely. But
I think that's an okay tradeoff for this one part of the API, and keeps
the other APIs intact.
## Testing
This PR contains tests to verify everything works as expected. You can
test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Changelog
### Public Changes
- Added `ArrayInfo::item_info` method
- Added `NamedField::type_info` method
- Added `UnnamedField::type_info` method
- Added `ListInfo::item_info` method
- Added `MapInfo::key_info` method
- Added `MapInfo::value_info` method
- All active fields now have a `Typed` bound (remember that this is
automatically satisfied for all types that derive `Reflect`)
### Internal Changes
- Added `MaybeTyped` trait
## Migration Guide
All active fields for reflected types (including lists, maps, tuples,
etc.), must implement `Typed`. For the majority of users this won't have
any visible impact.
However, users implementing `Reflect` manually may need to update their
types to implement `Typed` if they weren't already.
Additionally, custom dynamic types will need to implement the new hidden
`MaybeTyped` trait.
|
||
|
Gino Valente
|
99c9218b56
|
bevy_reflect: Feature-gate function reflection (#14174)
# 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 |
||
github-actions[bot]
|
8df10d2713
|
Bump Version after Release (#14219)
Bump version after release This PR has been auto-generated Co-authored-by: Bevy Auto Releaser <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: François Mockers <mockersf@gmail.com> |
||
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
|
276dd04001
|
bevy_reflect: Function reflection (#13152)
# 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:
|
||
|
Gino Valente
|
faf003fc9d
|
bevy_reflect: enum_utility cleanup (#13424)
# Objective The `enum_utility` module contains the `get_variant_constructors` function, which is used to generate token streams for constructing enums. It's used for the `FromReflect::from_reflect` implementation and the `Reflect::try_apply` implementation. Due to the complexity of enums, this function is understandably a little messy and difficult to extend. ## Solution Clean up the `enum_utility` module. Now "clean" is a bit subjective. I believe my solution is "cleaner" in that the logic to generate the tokens are strictly coupled with the intended usage. Because of this, `try_apply` is also no longer strictly coupled with `from_reflect`. This makes it easier to extend with new functionality, which is something I'm doing in a future unrelated PR that I have based off this one. ## Testing There shouldn't be any testing required other than ensuring that the project still builds and that CI passes. |
||
|
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. |
||
Brezak
|
9c4ac7c297
|
Finish the work on try_apply (#12646)
# 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> |
||
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`]( |