# 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
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
- 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.
# Objective
Fix typos throughout the project.
## Solution
[`typos`](https://github.com/crate-ci/typos) project was used for
scanning, but no automatic corrections were applied. I checked
everything by hand before fixing.
Most of the changes are documentation/comments corrections. Also, there
are few trivial changes to code (variable name, pub(crate) function name
and a few error/panic messages).
## Unsolved
`bevy_reflect_derive` has
[typo](1b51053f19/crates/bevy_reflect/bevy_reflect_derive/src/type_path.rs (L76))
in enum variant name that I didn't fix. Enum is `pub(crate)`, so there
shouldn't be any trouble if fixed. However, code is tightly coupled with
macro usage, so I decided to leave it for more experienced contributor
just in case.
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
- bevy_ggrs uses `reflect_hash` in order to produce checksums for its world snapshots. These checksums are sent between clients in order to detect desyncronization.
- However, since we currently use `async::AHasher` with the `std` feature, this means that hashes will always be different for different peers, even if the state is identical.
- This means bevy_ggrs needs a way to get a deterministic (fixed) hash.
## Solution
- ~~Add a feature to use `bevy_utils::FixedState` for the hasher used by bevy_reflect.~~
- Always use `bevy_utils::FixedState` for initializing the bevy_reflect hasher.
---
## Changelog
- bevy_reflect now uses a fixed state for its hasher, which means the output of `Reflect::reflect_hash` is now deterministic across processes.
# Objective
Resolves#7121
## Solution
Decouples `List` and `Array` by removing `Array` as a supertrait of `List`. Additionally, similar methods from `Array` have been added to `List` so that their usages can remain largely unchanged.
#### Possible Alternatives
##### `Sequence`
My guess for why we originally made `List` a subtrait of `Array` is that they share a lot of common operations. We could potentially move these overlapping methods to a `Sequence` (name taken from #7059) trait and make that a supertrait of both. This would allow functions to contain logic that simply operates on a sequence rather than "list vs array".
However, this means that we'd need to add methods for converting to a `dyn Sequence`. It also might be confusing since we wouldn't add a `ReflectRef::Sequence` or anything like that. Is such a trait worth adding (either in this PR or a followup one)?
---
## Changelog
- Removed `Array` as supertrait of `List`
- Added methods to `List` that were previously provided by `Array`
## Migration Guide
The `List` trait is no longer dependent on `Array`. Implementors of `List` can remove the `Array` impl and move its methods into the `List` impl (with only a couple tweaks).
```rust
// BEFORE
impl Array for Foo {
fn get(&self, index: usize) -> Option<&dyn Reflect> {/* ... */}
fn get_mut(&mut self, index: usize) -> Option<&mut dyn Reflect> {/* ... */}
fn len(&self) -> usize {/* ... */}
fn is_empty(&self) -> bool {/* ... */}
fn iter(&self) -> ArrayIter {/* ... */}
fn drain(self: Box<Self>) -> Vec<Box<dyn Reflect>> {/* ... */}
fn clone_dynamic(&self) -> DynamicArray {/* ... */}
}
impl List for Foo {
fn insert(&mut self, index: usize, element: Box<dyn Reflect>) {/* ... */}
fn remove(&mut self, index: usize) -> Box<dyn Reflect> {/* ... */}
fn push(&mut self, value: Box<dyn Reflect>) {/* ... */}
fn pop(&mut self) -> Option<Box<dyn Reflect>> {/* ... */}
fn clone_dynamic(&self) -> DynamicList {/* ... */}
}
// AFTER
impl List for Foo {
fn get(&self, index: usize) -> Option<&dyn Reflect> {/* ... */}
fn get_mut(&mut self, index: usize) -> Option<&mut dyn Reflect> {/* ... */}
fn insert(&mut self, index: usize, element: Box<dyn Reflect>) {/* ... */}
fn remove(&mut self, index: usize) -> Box<dyn Reflect> {/* ... */}
fn push(&mut self, value: Box<dyn Reflect>) {/* ... */}
fn pop(&mut self) -> Option<Box<dyn Reflect>> {/* ... */}
fn len(&self) -> usize {/* ... */}
fn is_empty(&self) -> bool {/* ... */}
fn iter(&self) -> ListIter {/* ... */}
fn drain(self: Box<Self>) -> Vec<Box<dyn Reflect>> {/* ... */}
fn clone_dynamic(&self) -> DynamicList {/* ... */}
}
```
Some other small tweaks that will need to be made include:
- Use `ListIter` for `List::iter` instead of `ArrayIter` (the return type from `Array::iter`)
- Replace `array_hash` with `list_hash` in `Reflect::reflect_hash` for implementors of `List`
# Objective
- Fixes#7430.
## Solution
- Changed fields of `ArrayIter` to be private.
- Add a constructor `new` to `ArrayIter`.
- Replace normal struct creation with `new`.
---
## Changelog
- Add a constructor `new` to `ArrayIter`.
Co-authored-by: Elbert Ronnie <103196773+elbertronnie@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)
# Objective
When trying derive `Debug` for type that has `DynamicEnum` it wasn't possible, since neither of `DynamicEnum`, `DynamicTuple`, `DynamicVariant` or `DynamicArray` implements `Debug`.
## Solution
Implement Debug for those types, using `derive` macro
---
## Changelog
- `DynamicEnum`, `DynamicTuple`, `DynamicVariant` and `DynamicArray` now implements `Debug`
# Objective
Sometimes it's useful to be able to retrieve all the fields of a container type so that they may be processed separately. With reflection, however, we typically only have access to references.
The only alternative is to "clone" the value using `Reflect::clone_value`. This, however, returns a Dynamic type in most cases. The solution there would be to use `FromReflect` instead, but this also has a problem in that it means we need to add `FromReflect` as an additional bound.
## Solution
Add a `drain` method to all container traits. This returns a `Vec<Box<dyn Reflect>>` (except for `Map` which returns `Vec<(Box<dyn Reflect>, Box<dyn Reflect>)>`).
This allows us to do things a lot simpler. For example, if we finished processing a struct and just need a particular value:
```rust
// === OLD === //
/// May or may not return a Dynamic*** value (even if `container` wasn't a `DynamicStruct`)
fn get_output(container: Box<dyn Struct>, output_index: usize) -> Box<dyn Reflect> {
container.field_at(output_index).unwrap().clone_value()
}
// === NEW === //
/// Returns _exactly_ whatever was in the given struct
fn get_output(container: Box<dyn Struct>, output_index: usize) -> Box<dyn Reflect> {
container.drain().remove(output_index).unwrap()
}
```
### Discussion
* Is `drain` the best method name? It makes sense that it "drains" all the fields and that it consumes the container in the process, but I'm open to alternatives.
---
## Changelog
* Added a `drain` method to the following traits:
* `Struct`
* `TupleStruct`
* `Tuple`
* `Array`
* `List`
* `Map`
* `Enum`
# 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>
builds on top of #4780
# Objective
`Reflect` and `Serialize` are currently very tied together because `Reflect` has a `fn serialize(&self) -> Option<Serializable<'_>>` method. Because of that, we can either implement `Reflect` for types like `Option<T>` with `T: Serialize` and have `fn serialize` be implemented, or without the bound but having `fn serialize` return `None`.
By separating `ReflectSerialize` into a separate type (like how it already is for `ReflectDeserialize`, `ReflectDefault`), we could separately `.register::<Option<T>>()` and `.register_data::<Option<T>, ReflectSerialize>()` only if the type `T: Serialize`.
This PR does not change the registration but allows it to be changed in a future PR.
## Solution
- add the type
```rust
struct ReflectSerialize { .. }
impl<T: Reflect + Serialize> FromType<T> for ReflectSerialize { .. }
```
- remove `#[reflect(Serialize)]` special casing.
- when serializing reflect value types, look for `ReflectSerialize` in the `TypeRegistry` instead of calling `value.serialize()`
# 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
Most of our `Iterator` impls satisfy the requirements of `std::iter::FusedIterator`, which has internal specialization that optimizes `Interator::fuse`. The std lib iterator combinators do have a few that rely on `fuse`, so this could optimize those use cases. I don't think we're using any of them in the engine itself, but beyond a light increase in compile time, it doesn't hurt to implement the trait.
## Solution
Implement the trait for all eligible iterators in first party crates. Also add a missing `ExactSizeIterator` on an iterator that could use it.
# Objective
`bevy_reflect` as different kinds of reflected types (each with their own trait), `trait Struct: Reflect`, `trait List: Reflect`, `trait Map: Reflect`, ...
Types that don't fit either of those are called reflect value types, they are opaque and can't be deconstructed further.
`bevy_reflect` can serialize `dyn Reflect` values. Any container types (struct, list, map) get deconstructed and their elements serialized separately, which can all happen without serde being involved ever (happens [here](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/main/crates/bevy_reflect/src/serde/ser.rs#L50-L85=)).
The only point at which we require types to be serde-serializable is for *value types* (happens [here](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/main/crates/bevy_reflect/src/serde/ser.rs#L104=)).
So reflect array serializing is solved, since arrays are container types which don't require serde.
#1213 also introduced added the `serialize` method and `Serialize` impls for `dyn Array` and `DynamicArray` which use their element's `Reflect::serializable` function. This is 1. unnecessary, because it is not used for array serialization, and 2. annoying for removing the `Serialize` bound on container types, because these impls don't have access to the `TypeRegistry`, so we can't move the serialization code there.
# Solution
Remove these impls and `fn serialize`. It's not used and annoying for other changes.
# 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
> ℹ️ **Note**: This is a rebased version of #2383. A large portion of it has not been touched (only a few minor changes) so that any additional discussion may happen here. All credit should go to @NathanSWard for their work on the original PR.
- Currently reflection is not supported for arrays.
- Fixes#1213
## Solution
* Implement reflection for arrays via the `Array` trait.
* Note, `Array` is different from `List` in the way that you cannot push elements onto an array as they are statically sized.
* Now `List` is defined as a sub-trait of `Array`.
---
## Changelog
* Added the `Array` reflection trait
* Allows arrays up to length 32 to be reflected via the `Array` trait
## Migration Guide
* The `List` trait now has the `Array` supertrait. This means that `clone_dynamic` will need to specify which version to use:
```rust
// Before
let cloned = my_list.clone_dynamic();
// After
let cloned = List::clone_dynamic(&my_list);
```
* All implementers of `List` will now need to implement `Array` (this mostly involves moving the existing methods to the `Array` impl)
Co-authored-by: NathanW <nathansward@comcast.net>
Co-authored-by: MrGVSV <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
