This updates the `pipelined-rendering` branch to use the latest `bevy_ecs` from `main`. This accomplishes a couple of goals:
1. prepares for upcoming `custom-shaders` branch changes, which were what drove many of the recent bevy_ecs changes on `main`
2. prepares for the soon-to-happen merge of `pipelined-rendering` into `main`. By including bevy_ecs changes now, we make that merge simpler / easier to review.
I split this up into 3 commits:
1. **add upstream bevy_ecs**: please don't bother reviewing this content. it has already received thorough review on `main` and is a literal copy/paste of the relevant folders (the old folders were deleted so the directories are literally exactly the same as `main`).
2. **support manual buffer application in stages**: this is used to enable the Extract step. we've already reviewed this once on the `pipelined-rendering` branch, but its worth looking at one more time in the new context of (1).
3. **support manual archetype updates in QueryState**: same situation as (2).
# Objective
Allow marking meshes as not casting / receiving shadows.
## Solution
- Added `NotShadowCaster` and `NotShadowReceiver` zero-sized type components.
- Extract these components into `bool`s in `ExtractedMesh`
- Only generate `DrawShadowMesh` `Drawable`s for meshes _without_ `NotShadowCaster`
- Add a `u32` bit `flags` member to `MeshUniform` with one flag indicating whether the mesh is a shadow receiver
- If a mesh does _not_ have the `NotShadowReceiver` component, then it is a shadow receiver, and so the bit in the `MeshUniform` is set, otherwise it is not set.
- Added an example illustrating the functionality.
NOTE: I wanted to have the default state of a mesh as being a shadow caster and shadow receiver, hence the `Not*` components. However, I am on the fence about this. I don't want to have a negative performance impact, nor have people wondering why their custom meshes don't have shadows because they forgot to add `ShadowCaster` and `ShadowReceiver` components, but I also really don't like the double negatives the `Not*` approach incurs. What do you think?
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
