# Objective
- Describe the objective or issue this PR addresses.
Use the fully qualified name for `Component` in the `require` attribute
- If you're fixing a specific issue, say "Fixes #X".
Fixes#16377
## Solution
- Describe the solution used to achieve the objective above.
Use the fully qualified name for `Component` in the `require` attribute,
i.e.,`<#ident as #bevy_ecs_path::component::Component>`
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
`cargo run -p ci -- lints`
`cargo run -p ci -- compile`
`cargo run -p ci -- test`
- Are there any parts that need more testing?
no
- How can other people (reviewers) test your changes? Is there anything
specific they need to know?
try to compile
```rust
#[derive(::bevy::ecs::component::Component, Default)]
pub struct A;
#[derive(::bevy::ecs::component::Component)]
#[require(A)]
pub struct B;
```
- If relevant, what platforms did you test these changes on, and are
there any important ones you can't test?
Mac only
---
</details>
## Migration Guide
> This section is optional. If there are no breaking changes, you can
delete this section.
- If this PR is a breaking change (relative to the last release of
Bevy), describe how a user might need to migrate their code to support
these changes
- Simply adding new functionality is not a breaking change.
- Fixing behavior that was definitely a bug, rather than a questionable
design choice is not a breaking change.
Co-authored-by: Volodymyr Enhelhardt <volodymyr.enhelhardt@ambr.net>
# Objective
Allow required component default values to be provided in-line.
```rust
#[derive(Component)]
#[require(
FocusPolicy(block_focus_policy)
)]
struct SomeComponent;
fn block_focus_policy() -> FocusPolicy {
FocusPolicy::Block
}
```
May now be expressed as:
```rust
#[derive(Component)]
#[require(
FocusPolicy(|| FocusPolicy::Block)
)]
struct SomeComponent;
```
## Solution
Modified the #[require] proc macro to accept a closure.
## Testing
Tested using my branch as a dependency, and switching between the inline
closure syntax and function syntax for a bunch of different components.
# Objective
Fixes#15367.
Currently, required components can only be defined through the `require`
macro attribute. While this should be used in most cases, there are also
several instances where you may want to define requirements at runtime,
commonly in plugins.
Example use cases:
- Require components only if the relevant optional plugins are enabled.
For example, a `SleepTimer` component (for physics) is only relevant if
the `SleepPlugin` is enabled.
- Third party crates can define their own requirements for first party
types. For example, "each `Handle<Mesh>` should require my custom
rendering data components". This also gets around the orphan rule.
- Generic plugins that add marker components based on the existence of
other components, like a generic `ColliderPlugin<C: AnyCollider>` that
wants to add a `ColliderMarker` component for all types of colliders.
- This is currently relevant for the retained render world in #15320.
The `ExtractComponentPlugin<C>` should add `SyncToRenderWorld` to all
components that should be extracted. This is currently done with
observers, which is more expensive than required components, and causes
archetype moves.
- Replace some built-in components with custom versions. For example, if
`GlobalTransform` required `Transform` through `TransformPlugin`, but we
wanted to use a `CustomTransform` type, we could replace
`TransformPlugin` with our own plugin. (This specific example isn't
good, but there are likely better use cases where this may be useful)
See #15367 for more in-depth reasoning.
## Solution
Add `register_required_components::<T, R>` and
`register_required_components_with::<T, R>` methods for `Default` and
custom constructors respectively. These methods exist on `App` and
`World`.
```rust
struct BirdPlugin;
impl Plugin for BirdPlugin {
fn plugin(app: &mut App) {
// Make `Bird` require `Wings` with a `Default` constructor.
app.register_required_components::<Bird, Wings>();
// Make `Wings` require `FlapSpeed` with a custom constructor.
// Fun fact: Some hummingbirds can flutter their wings 80 times per second!
app.register_required_components_with::<Wings, FlapSpeed>(|| FlapSpeed::from_duration(1.0 / 80.0));
}
}
```
The custom constructor is a function pointer to match the `require` API,
though it could take a raw value too.
Requirement inheritance works similarly as with the `require` attribute.
If `Bird` required `FlapSpeed` directly, it would take precedence over
indirectly requiring it through `Wings`. The same logic applies to all
levels of the inheritance tree.
Note that registering the same component requirement more than once will
panic, similarly to trying to add multiple component hooks of the same
type to the same component. This avoids constructor conflicts and
confusing ordering issues.
### Implementation
Runtime requirements have two additional challenges in comparison to the
`require` attribute.
1. The `require` attribute uses recursion and macros with clever
ordering to populate hash maps of required components for each component
type. The expected semantics are that "more specific" requirements
override ones deeper in the inheritance tree. However, at runtime, there
is no representation of how "specific" each requirement is.
2. If you first register the requirement `X -> Y`, and later register `Y
-> Z`, then `X` should also indirectly require `Z`. However, `Y` itself
doesn't know that it is required by `X`, so it's not aware that it
should update the list of required components for `X`.
My solutions to these problems are:
1. Store the depth in the inheritance tree for each entry of a given
component's `RequiredComponents`. This is used to determine how
"specific" each requirement is. For `require`-based registration, these
depths are computed as part of the recursion.
2. Store and maintain a `required_by` list in each component's
`ComponentInfo`, next to `required_components`. For `require`-based
registration, these are also added after each registration, as part of
the recursion.
When calling `register_required_components`, it works as follows:
1. Get the required components of `Foo`, and check that `Bar` isn't
already a *direct* requirement.
3. Register `Bar` as a required component for `Foo`, and add `Foo` to
the `required_by` list for `Bar`.
4. Find and register all indirect requirements inherited from `Bar`,
adding `Foo` to the `required_by` list for each component.
5. Iterate through components that require `Foo`, registering the new
inherited requires for them as indirect requirements.
The runtime registration is likely slightly more expensive than the
`require` version, but it is a one-time cost, and quite negligible in
practice, unless projects have hundreds or thousands of runtime
requirements. I have not benchmarked this however.
This does also add a small amount of extra cost to the `require`
attribute for updating `required_by` lists, but I expect it to be very
minor.
## Testing
I added some tests that are copies of the `require` versions, as well as
some tests that are more specific to the runtime implementation. I might
add a few more tests though.
## Discussion
- Is `register_required_components` a good name? Originally I went for
`register_component_requirement` to be consistent with
`register_component_hooks`, but the general feature is often referred to
as "required components", which is why I changed it to
`register_required_components`.
- Should we *not* panic for duplicate requirements? If so, should they
just be ignored, or should the latest registration overwrite earlier
ones?
- If we do want to panic for duplicate, conflicting registrations,
should we at least not panic if the registrations are *exactly* the
same, i.e. same component and same constructor? The current
implementation panics for all duplicate direct registrations regardless
of the constructor.
## Next Steps
- Allow `register_required_components` to take a `Bundle` instead of a
single required component.
- I could also try to do it in this PR if that would be preferable.
- Not directly related, but archetype invariants?
# Objective
Fixes#14331
## Solution
- Make `Traversal` a subtrait of `ReadOnlyQueryData`
- Update implementations and usages
## Testing
- Updated unit tests
## Migration Guide
Update implementations of `Traversal`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Christian Hughes <9044780+ItsDoot@users.noreply.github.com>
## Introduction
This is the first step in my [Next Generation Scene / UI
Proposal](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/14437).
Fixes https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/7272#14800.
Bevy's current Bundles as the "unit of construction" hamstring the UI
user experience and have been a pain point in the Bevy ecosystem
generally when composing scenes:
* They are an additional _object defining_ concept, which must be
learned separately from components. Notably, Bundles _are not present at
runtime_, which is confusing and limiting.
* They can completely erase the _defining component_ during Bundle init.
For example, `ButtonBundle { style: Style::default(), ..default() }`
_makes no mention_ of the `Button` component symbol, which is what makes
the Entity a "button"!
* They are not capable of representing "dependency inheritance" without
completely non-viable / ergonomically crushing nested bundles. This
limitation is especially painful in UI scenarios, but it applies to
everything across the board.
* They introduce a bunch of additional nesting when defining scenes,
making them ugly to look at
* They introduce component name "stutter": `SomeBundle { component_name:
ComponentName::new() }`
* They require copious sprinklings of `..default()` when spawning them
in Rust code, due to the additional layer of nesting
**Required Components** solve this by allowing you to define which
components a given component needs, and how to construct those
components when they aren't explicitly provided.
This is what a `ButtonBundle` looks like with Bundles (the current
approach):
```rust
#[derive(Component, Default)]
struct Button;
#[derive(Bundle, Default)]
struct ButtonBundle {
pub button: Button,
pub node: Node,
pub style: Style,
pub interaction: Interaction,
pub focus_policy: FocusPolicy,
pub border_color: BorderColor,
pub border_radius: BorderRadius,
pub image: UiImage,
pub transform: Transform,
pub global_transform: GlobalTransform,
pub visibility: Visibility,
pub inherited_visibility: InheritedVisibility,
pub view_visibility: ViewVisibility,
pub z_index: ZIndex,
}
commands.spawn(ButtonBundle {
style: Style {
width: Val::Px(100.0),
height: Val::Px(50.0),
..default()
},
focus_policy: FocusPolicy::Block,
..default()
})
```
And this is what it looks like with Required Components:
```rust
#[derive(Component)]
#[require(Node, UiImage)]
struct Button;
commands.spawn((
Button,
Style {
width: Val::Px(100.0),
height: Val::Px(50.0),
..default()
},
FocusPolicy::Block,
));
```
With Required Components, we mention only the most relevant components.
Every component required by `Node` (ex: `Style`, `FocusPolicy`, etc) is
automatically brought in!
### Efficiency
1. At insertion/spawn time, Required Components (including recursive
required components) are initialized and inserted _as if they were
manually inserted alongside the given components_. This means that this
is maximally efficient: there are no archetype or table moves.
2. Required components are only initialized and inserted if they were
not manually provided by the developer. For the code example in the
previous section, because `Style` and `FocusPolicy` are inserted
manually, they _will not_ be initialized and inserted as part of the
required components system. Efficient!
3. The "missing required components _and_ constructors needed for an
insertion" are cached in the "archetype graph edge", meaning they aren't
computed per-insertion. When a component is inserted, the "missing
required components" list is iterated (and that graph edge (AddBundle)
is actually already looked up for us during insertion, because we need
that for "normal" insert logic too).
### IDE Integration
The `#[require(SomeComponent)]` macro has been written in such a way
that Rust Analyzer can provide type-inspection-on-hover and `F12` /
go-to-definition for required components.
### Custom Constructors
The `require` syntax expects a `Default` constructor by default, but it
can be overridden with a custom constructor:
```rust
#[derive(Component)]
#[require(
Node,
Style(button_style),
UiImage
)]
struct Button;
fn button_style() -> Style {
Style {
width: Val::Px(100.0),
..default()
}
}
```
### Multiple Inheritance
You may have noticed by now that this behaves a bit like "multiple
inheritance". One of the problems that this presents is that it is
possible to have duplicate requires for a given type at different levels
of the inheritance tree:
```rust
#[derive(Component)
struct X(usize);
#[derive(Component)]
#[require(X(x1))
struct Y;
fn x1() -> X {
X(1)
}
#[derive(Component)]
#[require(
Y,
X(x2),
)]
struct Z;
fn x2() -> X {
X(2)
}
// What version of X is inserted for Z?
commands.spawn(Z);
```
This is allowed (and encouraged), although this doesn't appear to occur
much in practice. First: only one version of `X` is initialized and
inserted for `Z`. In the case above, I think we can all probably agree
that it makes the most sense to use the `x2` constructor for `X`,
because `Y`'s `x1` constructor exists "beneath" `Z` in the inheritance
hierarchy; `Z`'s constructor is "more specific".
The algorithm is simple and predictable:
1. Use all of the constructors (including default constructors) directly
defined in the spawned component's require list
2. In the order the requires are defined in `#[require()]`, recursively
visit the require list of each of the components in the list (this is a
depth Depth First Search). When a constructor is found, it will only be
used if one has not already been found.
From a user perspective, just think about this as the following:
1. Specifying a required component constructor for `Foo` directly on a
spawned component `Bar` will result in that constructor being used (and
overriding existing constructors lower in the inheritance tree). This is
the classic "inheritance override" behavior people expect.
2. For cases where "multiple inheritance" results in constructor
clashes, Components should be listed in "importance order". List a
component earlier in the requirement list to initialize its inheritance
tree earlier.
Required Components _does_ generally result in a model where component
values are decoupled from each other at construction time. Notably, some
existing Bundle patterns use bundle constructors to initialize multiple
components with shared state. I think (in general) moving away from this
is necessary:
1. It allows Required Components (and the Scene system more generally)
to operate according to simple rules
2. The "do arbitrary init value sharing in Bundle constructors" approach
_already_ causes data consistency problems, and those problems would be
exacerbated in the context of a Scene/UI system. For cases where shared
state is truly necessary, I think we are better served by observers /
hooks.
3. If a situation _truly_ needs shared state constructors (which should
be rare / generally discouraged), Bundles are still there if they are
needed.
## Next Steps
* **Require Construct-ed Components**: I have already implemented this
(as defined in the [Next Generation Scene / UI
Proposal](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/14437). However
I've removed `Construct` support from this PR, as that has not landed
yet. Adding this back in requires relatively minimal changes to the
current impl, and can be done as part of a future Construct pr.
* **Port Built-in Bundles to Required Components**: This isn't something
we should do right away. It will require rethinking our public
interfaces, which IMO should be done holistically after the rest of Next
Generation Scene / UI lands. I think we should merge this PR first and
let people experiment _inside their own code with their own Components_
while we wait for the rest of the new scene system to land.
* **_Consider_ Automatic Required Component Removal**: We should
evaluate _if_ automatic Required Component removal should be done. Ex:
if all components that explicitly require a component are removed,
automatically remove that component. This issue has been explicitly
deferred in this PR, as I consider the insertion behavior to be
desirable on its own (and viable on its own). I am also doubtful that we
can find a design that has behavior we actually want. Aka: can we
_really_ distinguish between a component that is "only there because it
was automatically inserted" and "a component that was necessary / should
be kept". See my [discussion response
here](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/discussions/14437#discussioncomment-10268668)
for more details.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: BD103 <59022059+BD103@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Pascal Hertleif <killercup@gmail.com>
# Objective
Fixes#14202
## Solution
Add `on_replaced` component hook and `OnReplaced` observer trigger
## Testing
- Did you test these changes? If so, how?
- Updated & added unit tests
---
## Changelog
- Added new `on_replaced` component hook and `OnReplaced` observer
trigger for performing cleanup on component values when they are
overwritten with `.insert()`
# Objective
Add basic bubbling to observers, modeled off `bevy_eventlistener`.
## Solution
- Introduce a new `Traversal` trait for components which point to other
entities.
- Provide a default `TraverseNone: Traversal` component which cannot be
constructed.
- Implement `Traversal` for `Parent`.
- The `Event` trait now has an associated `Traversal` which defaults to
`TraverseNone`.
- Added a field `bubbling: &mut bool` to `Trigger` which can be used to
instruct the runner to bubble the event to the entity specified by the
event's traversal type.
- Added an associated constant `SHOULD_BUBBLE` to `Event` which
configures the default bubbling state.
- Added logic to wire this all up correctly.
Introducing the new associated information directly on `Event` (instead
of a new `BubblingEvent` trait) lets us dispatch both bubbling and
non-bubbling events through the same api.
## Testing
I have added several unit tests to cover the common bugs I identified
during development. Running the unit tests should be enough to validate
correctness. The changes effect unsafe portions of the code, but should
not change any of the safety assertions.
## Changelog
Observers can now bubble up the entity hierarchy! To create a bubbling
event, change your `Derive(Event)` to something like the following:
```rust
#[derive(Component)]
struct MyEvent;
impl Event for MyEvent {
type Traverse = Parent; // This event will propagate up from child to parent.
const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = true; // This event will propagate by default.
}
```
You can dispatch a bubbling event using the normal
`world.trigger_targets(MyEvent, entity)`.
Halting an event mid-bubble can be done using
`trigger.propagate(false)`. Events with `AUTO_PROPAGATE = false` will
not propagate by default, but you can enable it using
`trigger.propagate(true)`.
If there are multiple observers attached to a target, they will all be
triggered by bubbling. They all share a bubbling state, which can be
accessed mutably using `trigger.propagation_mut()` (`trigger.propagate`
is just sugar for this).
You can choose to implement `Traversal` for your own types, if you want
to bubble along a different structure than provided by `bevy_hierarchy`.
Implementers must be careful never to produce loops, because this will
cause bevy to hang.
## Migration Guide
+ Manual implementations of `Event` should add associated type `Traverse
= TraverseNone` and associated constant `AUTO_PROPAGATE = false`;
+ `Trigger::new` has new field `propagation: &mut Propagation` which
provides the bubbling state.
+ `ObserverRunner` now takes the same `&mut Propagation` as a final
parameter.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Torstein Grindvik <52322338+torsteingrindvik@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
# Objective
Fixes https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/13972
## Solution
Added 3 new attributes to the `Component` macro.
## Testing
Added `component_hook_order_spawn_despawn_with_macro_hooks`, that makes
the same as `component_hook_order_spawn_despawn` but uses a struct, that
defines it's hooks with the `Component` macro.
---
---------
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
- Provide an expressive way to register dynamic behavior in response to
ECS changes that is consistent with existing bevy types and traits as to
provide a smooth user experience.
- Provide a mechanism for immediate changes in response to events during
command application in order to facilitate improved query caching on the
path to relations.
## Solution
- A new fundamental ECS construct, the `Observer`; inspired by flec's
observers but adapted to better fit bevy's access patterns and rust's
type system.
---
## Examples
There are 3 main ways to register observers. The first is a "component
observer" that looks like this:
```rust
world.observe(|trigger: Trigger<OnAdd, Transform>, query: Query<&Transform>| {
let transform = query.get(trigger.entity()).unwrap();
});
```
The above code will spawn a new entity representing the observer that
will run it's callback whenever the `Transform` component is added to an
entity. This is a system-like function that supports dependency
injection for all the standard bevy types: `Query`, `Res`, `Commands`
etc. It also has a `Trigger` parameter that provides information about
the trigger such as the target entity, and the event being triggered.
Importantly these systems run during command application which is key
for their future use to keep ECS internals up to date. There are similar
events for `OnInsert` and `OnRemove`, and this will be expanded with
things such as `ArchetypeCreated`, `TableEmpty` etc. in follow up PRs.
Another way to register an observer is an "entity observer" that looks
like this:
```rust
world.entity_mut(entity).observe(|trigger: Trigger<Resize>| {
// ...
});
```
Entity observers run whenever an event of their type is triggered
targeting that specific entity. This type of observer will de-spawn
itself if the entity (or entities) it is observing is ever de-spawned so
as to not leave dangling observers.
Entity observers can also be spawned from deferred contexts such as
other observers, systems, or hooks using commands:
```rust
commands.entity(entity).observe(|trigger: Trigger<Resize>| {
// ...
});
```
Observers are not limited to in built event types, they can be used with
any type that implements `Event` (which has been extended to implement
Component). This means events can also carry data:
```rust
#[derive(Event)]
struct Resize { x: u32, y: u32 }
commands.entity(entity).observe(|trigger: Trigger<Resize>, query: Query<&mut Size>| {
let event = trigger.event();
// ...
});
// Will trigger the observer when commands are applied.
commands.trigger_targets(Resize { x: 10, y: 10 }, entity);
```
You can also trigger events that target more than one entity at a time:
```rust
commands.trigger_targets(Resize { x: 10, y: 10 }, [e1, e2]);
```
Additionally, Observers don't _need_ entity targets:
```rust
app.observe(|trigger: Trigger<Quit>| {
})
commands.trigger(Quit);
```
In these cases, `trigger.entity()` will be a placeholder.
Observers are actually just normal entities with an `ObserverState` and
`Observer` component! The `observe()` functions above are just shorthand
for:
```rust
world.spawn(Observer::new(|trigger: Trigger<Resize>| {});
```
This will spawn the `Observer` system and use an `on_add` hook to add
the `ObserverState` component.
Dynamic components and trigger types are also fully supported allowing
for runtime defined trigger types.
## Possible Follow-ups
1. Deprecate `RemovedComponents`, observers should fulfill all use cases
while being more flexible and performant.
2. Queries as entities: Swap queries to entities and begin using
observers listening to archetype creation triggers to keep their caches
in sync, this allows unification of `ObserverState` and `QueryState` as
well as unlocking several API improvements for `Query` and the
management of `QueryState`.
3. Trigger bubbling: For some UI use cases in particular users are
likely to want some form of bubbling for entity observers, this is
trivial to implement naively but ideally this includes an acceleration
structure to cache hierarchy traversals.
4. All kinds of other in-built trigger types.
5. Optimization; in order to not bloat the complexity of the PR I have
kept the implementation straightforward, there are several areas where
performance can be improved. The focus for this PR is to get the
behavior implemented and not incur a performance cost for users who
don't use observers.
I am leaving each of these to follow up PR's in order to keep each of
them reviewable as this already includes significant changes.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
# Objective
When doing a final pass for #3362, it appeared that `ComponentStorage`
as a trait, the two types implementing it, and the associated type on
`Component` aren't really necessary anymore. This likely was due to an
earlier constraint on the use of consts in traits, but that definitely
doesn't seem to be a problem in Rust 1.76.
## Solution
Remove them.
---
## Changelog
Changed: `Component::Storage` has been replaced with
`Component::STORAGE_TYPE` as a const.
Removed: `bevy::ecs::component::ComponentStorage` trait
Removed: `bevy::ecs::component::TableStorage` struct
Removed: `bevy::ecs::component::SparseSetStorage` struct
## Migration Guide
If you were manually implementing `Component` instead of using the
derive macro, replace the associated `Storage` associated type with the
`STORAGE_TYPE` const:
```rust
// in Bevy 0.13
impl Component for MyComponent {
type Storage = TableStorage;
}
// in Bevy 0.14
impl Component for MyComponent {
const STORAGE_TYPE: StorageType = StorageType::Table;
}
```
Component is no longer object safe. If you were relying on `&dyn
Component`, `Box<dyn Component>`, etc. please [file an issue
](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues) to get [this
change](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/12311) reverted.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# 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.
# Objective
Be consistent with `Resource`s and `Components` and have `Event` types
be more self-documenting.
Although not susceptible to accidentally using a function instead of a
value due to `Event`s only being initialized by their type, much of the
same reasoning for removing the blanket impl on `Resource` also applies
here.
* Not immediately obvious if a type is intended to be an event
* Prevent invisible conflicts if the same third-party or primitive types
are used as events
* Allows for further extensions (e.g. opt-in warning for missed events)
## Solution
Remove the blanket impl for the `Event` trait. Add a derive macro for
it.
---
## Changelog
- `Event` is no longer implemented for all applicable types. Add the
`#[derive(Event)]` macro for events.
## Migration Guide
* Add the `#[derive(Event)]` macro for events. Third-party types used as
events should be wrapped in a newtype.
*This PR description is an edited copy of #5007, written by @alice-i-cecile.*
# Objective
Follow-up to https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/2254. The `Resource` trait currently has a blanket implementation for all types that meet its bounds.
While ergonomic, this results in several drawbacks:
* it is possible to make confusing, silent mistakes such as inserting a function pointer (Foo) rather than a value (Foo::Bar) as a resource
* it is challenging to discover if a type is intended to be used as a resource
* we cannot later add customization options (see the [RFC](https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/blob/main/rfcs/27-derive-component.md) for the equivalent choice for Component).
* dependencies can use the same Rust type as a resource in invisibly conflicting ways
* raw Rust types used as resources cannot preserve privacy appropriately, as anyone able to access that type can read and write to internal values
* we cannot capture a definitive list of possible resources to display to users in an editor
## Notes to reviewers
* Review this commit-by-commit; there's effectively no back-tracking and there's a lot of churn in some of these commits.
*ira: My commits are not as well organized :')*
* I've relaxed the bound on Local to Send + Sync + 'static: I don't think these concerns apply there, so this can keep things simple. Storing e.g. a u32 in a Local is fine, because there's a variable name attached explaining what it does.
* I think this is a bad place for the Resource trait to live, but I've left it in place to make reviewing easier. IMO that's best tackled with https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/4981.
## Changelog
`Resource` is no longer automatically implemented for all matching types. Instead, use the new `#[derive(Resource)]` macro.
## Migration Guide
Add `#[derive(Resource)]` to all types you are using as a resource.
If you are using a third party type as a resource, wrap it in a tuple struct to bypass orphan rules. Consider deriving `Deref` and `DerefMut` to improve ergonomics.
`ClearColor` no longer implements `Component`. Using `ClearColor` as a component in 0.8 did nothing.
Use the `ClearColorConfig` in the `Camera3d` and `Camera2d` components instead.
Co-authored-by: Alice <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: devil-ira <justthecooldude@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
What is says on the tin.
This has got more to do with making `clippy` slightly more *quiet* than it does with changing anything that might greatly impact readability or performance.
that said, deriving `Default` for a couple of structs is a nice easy win
This makes the [New Bevy Renderer](#2535) the default (and only) renderer. The new renderer isn't _quite_ ready for the final release yet, but I want as many people as possible to start testing it so we can identify bugs and address feedback prior to release.
The examples are all ported over and operational with a few exceptions:
* I removed a good portion of the examples in the `shader` folder. We still have some work to do in order to make these examples possible / ergonomic / worthwhile: #3120 and "high level shader material plugins" are the big ones. This is a temporary measure.
* Temporarily removed the multiple_windows example: doing this properly in the new renderer will require the upcoming "render targets" changes. Same goes for the render_to_texture example.
* Removed z_sort_debug: entity visibility sort info is no longer available in app logic. we could do this on the "render app" side, but i dont consider it a priority.
This implements the most minimal variant of #1843 - a derive for marker trait. This is a prerequisite to more complicated features like statically defined storage type or opt-out component reflection.
In order to make component struct's purpose explicit and avoid misuse, it must be annotated with `#[derive(Component)]` (manual impl is discouraged for compatibility). Right now this is just a marker trait, but in the future it might be expanded. Making this change early allows us to make further changes later without breaking backward compatibility for derive macro users.
This already prevents a lot of issues, like using bundles in `insert` calls. Primitive types are no longer valid components as well. This can be easily worked around by adding newtype wrappers and deriving `Component` for them.
One funny example of prevented bad code (from our own tests) is when an newtype struct or enum variant is used. Previously, it was possible to write `insert(Newtype)` instead of `insert(Newtype(value))`. That code compiled, because function pointers (in this case newtype struct constructor) implement `Send + Sync + 'static`, so we allowed them to be used as components. This is no longer the case and such invalid code will trigger a compile error.
Co-authored-by: = <=>
Co-authored-by: TheRawMeatball <therawmeatball@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
