Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Clar Fon
efda7f3f9c
Simpler lint fixes: makes ci lints work but disables a lint for now (#15376)
Takes the first two commits from #15375 and adds suggestions from this
comment:
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/15375#issuecomment-2366968300

See #15375 for more reasoning/motivation.

## Rebasing (rerunning)

```rust
git switch simpler-lint-fixes
git reset --hard main
cargo fmt --all -- --unstable-features --config normalize_comments=true,imports_granularity=Crate
cargo fmt --all
git add --update
git commit --message "rustfmt"
cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets --all-features --fix
cargo fmt --all -- --unstable-features --config normalize_comments=true,imports_granularity=Crate
cargo fmt --all
git add --update
git commit --message "clippy"
git cherry-pick e6c0b94f6795222310fb812fa5c4512661fc7887
```
2024-09-24 11:42:59 +00:00
Gino Valente
83356b12c9
bevy_reflect: Replace "value" terminology with "opaque" (#15240)
# Objective

Currently, the term "value" in the context of reflection is a bit
overloaded.

For one, it can be used synonymously with "data" or "variable". An
example sentence would be "this function takes a reflected value".

However, it is also used to refer to reflected types which are
`ReflectKind::Value`. These types are usually either primitives, opaque
types, or types that don't fall into any other `ReflectKind` (or perhaps
could, but don't due to some limitation/difficulty). An example sentence
would be "this function takes a reflected value type".

This makes it difficult to write good documentation or other learning
material without causing some amount of confusion to readers. Ideally,
we'd be able to move away from the `ReflectKind::Value` usage and come
up with a better term.

## Solution

This PR replaces the terminology of "value" with "opaque" across
`bevy_reflect`. This includes in documentation, type names, variant
names, and macros.

The term "opaque" was chosen because that's essentially how the type is
treated within the reflection API. In other words, its internal
structure is hidden. All we can do is work with the type itself.

### Primitives

While primitives are not technically opaque types, I think it's still
clearer to refer to them as "opaque" rather than keep the confusing
"value" terminology.

We could consider adding another concept for primitives (e.g.
`ReflectKind::Primitive`), but I'm not sure that provides a lot of
benefit right now. In most circumstances, they'll be treated just like
an opaque type. They would also likely use the same macro (or two copies
of the same macro but with different names).

## Testing

You can test locally by running:

```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features
```

---

## Migration Guide

The reflection concept of "value type" has been replaced with a clearer
"opaque type". The following renames have been made to account for this:

- `ReflectKind::Value` → `ReflectKind::Opaque`
- `ReflectRef::Value` → `ReflectRef::Opaque`
- `ReflectMut::Value` → `ReflectMut::Opaque`
- `ReflectOwned::Value` → `ReflectOwned::Opaque`
- `TypeInfo::Value` → `TypeInfo::Opaque`
- `ValueInfo` → `OpaqueInfo`
- `impl_reflect_value!` → `impl_reflect_opaque!`
- `impl_from_reflect_value!` → `impl_from_reflect_opaque!`

Additionally, declaring your own opaque types no longer uses
`#[reflect_value]`. This attribute has been replaced by
`#[reflect(opaque)]`:

```rust
// BEFORE
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect_value(Default)]
struct MyOpaqueType(u32);

// AFTER
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(opaque)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct MyOpaqueType(u32);
```

Note that the order in which `#[reflect(opaque)]` appears does not
matter.
2024-09-23 18:04:57 +00:00
charlotte
5eca832cee
Add convenience methods for constructing and setting storage buffer data (#15044)
Adds some methods to assist in building `ShaderStorageBuffer` without
using `bytemuck`. We keep the `&[u8]` constructors since this is still
modeled as a thin wrapper around the buffer descriptor, but should make
it easier to interact with at the cost of an extra allocation in the
`ShaderType` path for the buffer writer.

Follow up from #14663
2024-09-09 15:28:31 +00:00
charlotte
a4640046fc
Adds ShaderStorageBuffer asset (#14663)
Adds a new `Handle<Storage>` asset type that can be used as a render
asset, particularly for use with `AsBindGroup`.

Closes: #13658 

# Objective

Allow users to create storage buffers in the main world without having
to access the `RenderDevice`. While this resource is technically
available, it's bad form to use in the main world and requires mixing
rendering details with main world code. Additionally, this makes storage
buffers easier to use with `AsBindGroup`, particularly in the following
scenarios:
- Sharing the same buffers between a compute stage and material shader.
We already have examples of this for storage textures (see game of life
example) and these changes allow a similar pattern to be used with
storage buffers.
- Preventing repeated gpu upload (see the previous easier to use `Vec`
`AsBindGroup` option).
- Allow initializing custom materials using `Default`. Previously, the
lack of a `Default` implement for the raw `wgpu::Buffer` type made
implementing a `AsBindGroup + Default` bound difficult in the presence
of buffers.

## Solution

Adds a new `Handle<Storage>` asset type that is prepared into a
`GpuStorageBuffer` render asset. This asset can either be initialized
with a `Vec<u8>` of properly aligned data or with a size hint. Users can
modify the underlying `wgpu::BufferDescriptor` to provide additional
usage flags.

## Migration Guide

The `AsBindGroup` `storage` attribute has been modified to reference the
new `Handle<Storage>` asset instead. Usages of Vec` should be converted
into assets instead.

---------

Co-authored-by: IceSentry <IceSentry@users.noreply.github.com>
2024-09-02 16:46:34 +00:00