# Objective
- implements ParsedPath::try_from<&str>
- resolves#14438
## Testing
- Added unit test for ParsedPath::try_from<&str>
Note: I don't claim to be an expert on lifetimes! That said I think it
makes sense that the error shares a lifetime with input string as deeper
down it is used to construct it.
# Objective
Thanks to #7207, we now have a way to validate at the type-level that a
reflected value is actually the type it says it is and not just a
dynamic representation of that type.
`dyn PartialReflect` values _might_ be a dynamic type, but `dyn Reflect`
values are guaranteed to _not_ be a dynamic type.
Therefore, we can start to add methods to `Reflect` that weren't really
possible before. For example, we should now be able to always get a
`&'static TypeInfo`, and not just an `Option<&'static TypeInfo>`.
## Solution
Add the `DynamicTyped` trait.
This trait is similar to `DynamicTypePath` in that it provides a way to
use the non-object-safe `Typed` trait in an object-safe way.
And since all types that derive `Reflect` will also derive `Typed`, we
can safely add `DynamicTyped` as a supertrait of `Reflect`. This allows
us to use it when just given a `dyn Reflect` trait object.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Showcase
`Reflect` now has a supertrait of `DynamicTyped`, allowing `TypeInfo` to
be retrieved from a `dyn Reflect` trait object without having to unwrap
anything!
```rust
let value: Box<dyn Reflect> = Box::new(String::from("Hello!"));
// BEFORE
let info: &'static TypeInfo = value.get_represented_type_info().unwrap();
// AFTER
let info: &'static TypeInfo = value.reflect_type_info();
```
## Migration Guide
`Reflect` now has a supertrait of `DynamicTyped`. If you were manually
implementing `Reflect` and did not implement `Typed`, you will now need
to do so.
# Objective
The module docs for `bevy_reflect::func` don't mention the
`FunctionRegistry`.
## Solution
Add a section about the `FunctionRegistry` to the module-level
documentation.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --doc --package bevy_reflect --all-features
```
# Objective
Reflection serialization can be difficult to debug. A lot of times a
type fails to be serialized and the user is left wondering where that
type came from.
This is most often encountered with Bevy's scenes. Attempting to
serialize all resources in the world will fail because some resources
can't be serialized.
For example, users will often get complaints about `bevy_utils::Instant`
not registering `ReflectSerialize`. Well, `Instant` can't be serialized,
so the only other option is to exclude the resource that contains it.
But what resource contains it? This is where reflection serialization
can get a little tricky (it's `Time<Real>` btw).
## Solution
Add the `debug_stack` feature to `bevy_reflect`. When enabled, the
reflection serializers and deserializers will keep track of the current
type stack. And this stack will be used in error messages to help with
debugging.
Now, if we unknowingly try to serialize `Time<Real>`, we'll get the
following error:
```
type `bevy_utils::Instant` did not register the `ReflectSerialize` type data. For certain types, this may need to be registered manually using `register_type_data` (stack: `bevy_time::time::Time<bevy_time::real::Real>` -> `bevy_time::real::Real` -> `bevy_utils::Instant`)
```
### Implementation
This makes use of `thread_local!` to manage an internal `TypeInfoStack`
which holds a stack of `&'static TypeInfo`. We push to the stack before
a type is (de)serialized and pop from the stack afterwards.
Using a thread-local should be fine since we know two (de)serializers
can't be running at the same time (and if they're running on separate
threads, then we're still good).
The only potential issue would be if a user went through one of the
sub-serializers, like `StructSerializer`. However, I don't think many
users are going through these types (I don't even know if we necessarily
want to keep those public either, but we'll save that for a different
PR). Additionally, this is just a debug feature that only affects error
messages, so it wouldn't have any drastically negative effect. It would
just result in the stack not being cleared properly if there were any
errors.
Lastly, this is not the most performant implementation since we now
fetch the `TypeInfo` an extra time. But I figured that for a debug tool,
it wouldn't matter too much.
### Feature
This also adds a `debug` feature, which enables the `debug_stack`
feature.
I added it because I think we may want to potentially add more debug
tools in the future, and this gives us a good framework for adding
those. Users who want all debug features, present and future, can just
set `debug`. If they only want this feature, then they can just use
`debug_stack`.
I also made the `debug` feature default to help capture the widest
audience (i.e. the users who want this feature but don't know they do).
However, if we think it's better as a non-default feature, I can change
it!
And if there's any bikeshedding around the name `debug_stack`, let me
know!
## Testing
Run the following command:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect --features debug_stack
```
---
## Changelog
- Added the `debug` and `debug_stack` features to `bevy_reflect`
- Updated the error messages returned by the reflection serializers and
deserializers to include more contextual information when the
`debug_stack` or `debug` feature is enabled
# Objective
Some of the new compile error messages are a little unclear (at least to
me). For example:
```
error[E0277]: `tests::foo::Bar` can not be created through reflection
--> crates/bevy_reflect/src/lib.rs:679:18
|
679 | #[derive(Reflect)]
| ^^^^^^^ the trait `from_reflect::FromReflect` is not implemented for `tests::foo::Bar`
|
= note: consider annotating `tests::foo::Bar` with `#[derive(Reflect)]` or `#[derive(FromReflect)]`
```
While the annotation makes it clear that `FromReflect` is missing, it's
not very clear from the main error message.
My IDE lists errors with only their message immediately present:
<p align="center">
<img width="700" alt="Image of said IDE listing errors with only their
message immediately present. These errors are as follows:
\"`tests::foo::Bar` can not be created through reflection\", \"The trait
bound `tests::foo::Bar: RegisterForReflection` is not satisfied\", and
\"The trait bound `tests::foo::Bar: type_info::MaybeTyped` is not
satisfied\""
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/42c24051-9e8e-4555-8477-51a9407446aa">
</p>
This makes it hard to tell at a glance why my code isn't compiling.
## Solution
Updated all `on_unimplemented` attributes in `bevy_reflect` to mention
the relevant trait—either the actual trait or the one users actually
need to implement—as well as a small snippet of what not implementing
them means.
For example, failing to implement `TypePath` now mentions missing a
`TypePath` implementation. And failing to implement `DynamicTypePath`
now also mentions missing a `TypePath` implementation, since that's the
actual trait users need to implement (i.e. they shouldn't implement
`DynamicTypePath` directly).
Lastly, I also added some missing `on_unimplemented` attributes for
`MaybeTyped` and `RegisterForReflection` (which you can see in the image
above).
Here's how this looks in my IDE now:
<p align="center">
<img width="700" alt="Similar image as before showing the errors listed
by the IDE. This time the errors read as follows: \"`tests::foo::Bar`
does not implement `FromReflect` so cannot be reified through
reflection\", \"`tests::foo::Bar` does not implement
`GetTypeRegistration` so cannot be registered for reflection\", and
\"`tests::foo::Bar` does not implement `Typed` so cannot provide static
type information\""
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/f6f8501f-0450-4f78-b84f-00e7a18d0533">
</p>
## Testing
You can test by adding the following code and verifying the compile
errors are correct:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo(Bar);
struct Bar;
```
# Objective
`EntityHash` and related types were moved from `bevy_utils` to
`bevy_ecs` in #11498, but seemed to have been accidentally reintroduced
a week later in #11707.
## Solution
Remove the old leftover code.
---
## Migration Guide
- Uses of `bevy::utils::{EntityHash, EntityHasher, EntityHashMap,
EntityHashSet}` now have to be imported from `bevy::ecs::entity`.
# Objective
The `ser` and `de` modules in `bevy_reflect/serde` are very long and
difficult to navigate.
## Solution
Refactor both modules into many smaller modules that each have a single
primary focus (i.e. a `structs` module that only handles struct
serialization/deserialization).
I chose to keep the `ser` and `de` modules separate. We could have
instead broken it up kind (e.g. lists, maps, etc.), but I think this is
a little cleaner. Serialization and deserialization, while related, can
be very different. So keeping them separated makes sense for
organizational purposes.
That being said, if people disagree and think we should structure this a
different way, I am open to changing it.
Note that this PR's changes are mainly structural. There are a few
places I refactored code to reduce duplication and to make things a bit
cleaner, but these are largely cosmetic and shouldn't have any impact on
behavior.
### Other Details
This PR also hides a lot of the internal logic from being exported.
These were originally public, but it's unlikely they really saw any use
outside of these modules. In fact, you don't really gain anything by
using them outside of this module either.
By privatizing these fields and items, we also set ourselves up for more
easily changing internal logic around without involving a breaking
change.
I also chose not to mess around with tests since that would really blow
up the diff haha.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect --all-features
```
---
## Migration Guide
The fields on `ReflectSerializer` and `TypedReflectSerializer` are now
private. To instantiate, the corresponding constructor must be used:
```rust
// BEFORE
let serializer = ReflectSerializer {
value: &my_value,
registry: &type_registry,
};
// AFTER
let serializer = ReflectSerializer::new(&my_value, &type_registry);
```
Additionally, the following types are no longer public:
- `ArraySerializer`
- `EnumSerializer`
- `ListSerializer`
- `MapSerializer`
- `ReflectValueSerializer` (fully removed)
- `StructSerializer`
- `TupleSerializer`
- `TupleStructSerializer`
As well as the following traits:
- `DeserializeValue` (fully removed)
# Objective
- Crate-level prelude modules, such as `bevy_ecs::prelude`, are plagued
with inconsistency! Let's fix it!
## Solution
Format all preludes based on the following rules:
1. All preludes should have brief documentation in the format of:
> The _name_ prelude.
>
> This includes the most common types in this crate, re-exported for
your convenience.
2. All documentation should be outer, not inner. (`///` instead of
`//!`.)
3. No prelude modules should be annotated with `#[doc(hidden)]`. (Items
within them may, though I'm not sure why this was done.)
## Testing
- I manually searched for the term `mod prelude` and updated all
occurrences by hand. 🫠
---------
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
- Fixes#14969
## Solution
- Added `Deserialize` to the list of reflected traits for `SmolStr`
## Testing
- CI passed locally.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
- Fixes#14974
## Solution
- Replace all* instances of `NonZero*` with `NonZero<*>`
## Testing
- CI passed locally.
---
## Notes
Within the `bevy_reflect` implementations for `std` types,
`impl_reflect_value!()` will continue to use the type aliases instead,
as it inappropriately parses the concrete type parameter as a generic
argument. If the `ZeroablePrimitive` trait was stable, or the macro
could be modified to accept a finite list of types, then we could fully
migrate.
# Objective
Based on the discussion in #14864, I wanted to experiment with the core
`GenericTypeCell` type, whose `get_or_insert` method accounted for 2% of
the final binary size of the `3d_scene` example. The reason for this
large percentage is likely because the type is fundamental to the rest
of Bevy while having 3 generic parameters (the type stored `T`, the type
to retrieve `G`, and the function used to insert a new value `F`).
- Acts on #14864
## Solution
- Split `get_or_insert` into smaller functions with minimised
parameterisation. These new functions are private as to preserve the
public facing API, but could be exposed if desired.
## Testing
- Ran CI locally.
- Used `cargo bloat --release --example 3d_scene -n 100000
--message-format json > out.json` and @cart's [bloat
analyzer](https://gist.github.com/cart/722756ba3da0e983d207633e0a48a8ab)
to measure a 428KiB reduction in binary size when compiling on Windows
10.
- ~I have _not_ benchmarked to determine if this improves/hurts
performance.~ See
[below](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/14865#issuecomment-2306083606).
## Notes
In my opinion this seems like a good test-case for the concept of
debloating generics within the Bevy codebase. I believe the performance
impact here is negligible in either direction (at runtime and compile
time), but the binary reduction is measurable and quite significant for
a relatively minor change in code.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
Closes#7622.
I was working on adding support for reflecting generic functions and
found that I wanted to use an argument's `TypeId` for hashing and
comparison, but its `TypePath` for debugging and error messaging.
While I could just keep them separate, place them in a tuple or a local
struct or something, I think I see an opportunity to make a dedicate
type for this.
Additionally, we can use this type to clean up some duplication amongst
the type info structs in a manner similar to #7622.
## Solution
Added the `Type` type. This should be seen as the most basic
representation of a type apart from `TypeId`. It stores both the
`TypeId` of the type as well as its `TypePathTable`.
The `Hash` and `PartialEq` implementations rely on the `TypeId`, while
the `Debug` implementation relies on the `TypePath`.
This makes it especially useful as a key in a `HashMap` since we get the
speed of the `TypeId` hashing/comparisons with the readability of
`TypePath`.
With this type, we're able to reduce the duplication across the type
info structs by removing individual fields for `TypeId` and
`TypePathTable`, replacing them with a single `Type` field. Similarly,
we can remove many duplicate methods and replace it with a macro that
delegates to the stored `Type`.
### Caveats
It should be noted that this type is currently 3x larger than `TypeId`.
On my machine, it's 48 bytes compared to `TypeId`'s 16. While this
doesn't matter for `TypeInfo` since it would contain that data
regardless, it is something to keep in mind when using elsewhere.
## Testing
All tests should pass as normal:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Showcase
`bevy_reflect` now exports a `Type` struct. This type contains both the
`TypeId` and the `TypePathTable` of the given type, allowing it to be
used like `TypeId` but have the debuggability of `TypePath`.
```rust
// We can create this for any type implementing `TypePath`:
let ty = Type::of::<String>();
// It has `Hash` and `Eq` impls powered by `TypeId`, making it useful for maps:
let mut map = HashMap::<Type, i32>::new();
map.insert(ty, 25);
// And it has a human-readable `Debug` representation:
let debug = format!("{:?}", map);
assert_eq!(debug, "{alloc::string::String: 25}");
```
## Migration Guide
Certain type info structs now only return their item types as `Type`
instead of exposing direct methods on them.
The following methods have been removed:
- `ArrayInfo::item_type_path_table`
- `ArrayInfo::item_type_id`
- `ArrayInfo::item_is`
- `ListInfo::item_type_path_table`
- `ListInfo::item_type_id`
- `ListInfo::item_is`
- `SetInfo::value_type_path_table`
- `SetInfo::value_type_id`
- `SetInfo::value_is`
- `MapInfo::key_type_path_table`
- `MapInfo::key_type_id`
- `MapInfo::key_is`
- `MapInfo::value_type_path_table`
- `MapInfo::value_type_id`
- `MapInfo::value_is`
Instead, access the `Type` directly using one of the new methods:
- `ArrayInfo::item_ty`
- `ListInfo::item_ty`
- `SetInfo::value_ty`
- `MapInfo::key_ty`
- `MapInfo::value_ty`
For example:
```rust
// BEFORE
let type_id = array_info.item_type_id();
// AFTER
let type_id = array_info.item_ty().id();
```
# Objective
- Fixes#14844
## Solution
- implement reflect using the `impl_reflect_value` macro
## Testing
- I wrote a test locally to understand and learn how reflection worked
on a basic level and to confirm that yes indeed the bound struct could
use the reflection traits that have been implemented for it.
note: I did remove a line that asked for bound to not have reflect
implemented in a test, since that's the point of this PR and the test
worked without the line so I am not sure what that was about, not sure
if that uncovers a deeper issue or not.
# Objective
Fixes#14782
## Solution
Enable the lint and fix all upcoming hints (`--fix`). Also tried to
figure out the false-positive (see review comment). Maybe split this PR
up into multiple parts where only the last one enables the lint, so some
can already be merged resulting in less many files touched / less
potential for merge conflicts?
Currently, there are some cases where it might be easier to read the
code with the qualifier, so perhaps remove the import of it and adapt
its cases? In the current stage it's just a plain adoption of the
suggestions in order to have a base to discuss.
## Testing
`cargo clippy` and `cargo run -p ci` are happy.
# Objective
One of the changes in #14704 made `DynamicFunction` effectively the same
as `DynamicClosure<'static>`. This change meant that the de facto
function type would likely be `DynamicClosure<'static>` instead of the
intended `DynamicFunction`, since the former is much more flexible.
We _could_ explore ways of making `DynamicFunction` implement `Copy`
using some unsafe code, but it likely wouldn't be worth it. And users
would likely still reach for the convenience of
`DynamicClosure<'static>` over the copy-ability of `DynamicFunction`.
The goal of this PR is to fix this confusion between the two types.
## Solution
Firstly, the `DynamicFunction` type was removed. Again, it was no
different than `DynamicClosure<'static>` so it wasn't a huge deal to
remove.
Secondly, `DynamicClosure<'env>` and `DynamicClosureMut<'env>` were
renamed to `DynamicFunction<'env>` and `DynamicFunctionMut<'env>`,
respectively.
Yes, we still ultimately kept the naming of `DynamicFunction`, but
changed its behavior to that of `DynamicClosure<'env>`. We need a term
to refer to both functions and closures, and "function" was the best
option.
[Originally](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1274091992162242710),
I was going to go with "callable" as the replacement term to encompass
both functions and closures (e.g. `DynamciCallable<'env>`). However, it
was
[suggested](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1274653581777047625)
by @SkiFire13 that the simpler "function" term could be used instead.
While "callable" is perhaps the better umbrella term—being truly
ambiguous over functions and closures— "function" is more familiar, used
more often, easier to discover, and is subjectively just
"better-sounding".
## Testing
Most changes are purely swapping type names or updating documentation,
but you can verify everything still works by running the following
command:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
# Objective
#14098 added the `FunctionRegistry` for registering functions such that
they can be retrieved by name and used dynamically. One thing we chose
to leave out in that initial PR is support for closures.
Why support closures? Mainly, we don't want to prohibit users from
injecting environmental data into their registered functions. This
allows these functions to not leak their internals to the public API.
For example, let's say we're writing a library crate that allows users
to register callbacks for certain actions. We want to perform some
actions before invoking the user's callback so we can't just call it
directly. We need a closure for this:
```rust
registry.register("my_lib::onclick", move |event: ClickEvent| {
// ...other work...
user_onclick.call(event); // <-- Captured variable
});
```
We could have made our callback take a reference to the user's callback.
This would remove the need for the closure, but it would change our
desired API to place the burden of fetching the correct callback on the
caller.
## Solution
Modify the `FunctionRegistry` to store registered functions as
`DynamicClosure<'static>` instead of `DynamicFunction` (now using
`IntoClosure` instead of `IntoFunction`).
Due to limitations in Rust and how function reflection works,
`DynamicClosure<'static>` is functionally equivalent to
`DynamicFunction`. And a normal function is considered a subset of
closures (it's a closure that doesn't capture anything), so there
shouldn't be any difference in usage: all functions that satisfy
`IntoFunction` should satisfy `IntoClosure`.
This means that the registration API introduced in #14098 should require
little-to-no changes on anyone following `main`.
### Closures vs Functions
One consideration here is whether we should keep closures and functions
separate.
This PR unifies them into `DynamicClosure<'static>`, but we can consider
splitting them up. The reasons we might want to do so are:
- Simplifies mental model and terminology (users don't have to
understand that functions turn into closures)
- If Rust ever improves its function model, we may be able to add
additional guarantees to `DynamicFunction` that make it useful to
separate the two
- Adding support for generic functions may be less confusing for users
since closures in Rust technically can't be generic
The reasons behind this PR's unification approach are:
- Reduces the number of methods needed on `FunctionRegistry`
- Reduces the number of lookups a user may have to perform (i.e.
"`get_function` or else `get_closure`")
- Establishes `DynamicClosure<'static>` as the de facto dynamic callable
(similar to how most APIs in Rust code tend to prefer `impl Fn() ->
String` over `fn() -> String`)
I'd love to hear feedback on this matter, and whether we should continue
with this PR's approach or switch to a split model.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Showcase
Closures can now be registered into the `FunctionRegistry`:
```rust
let punct = String::from("!!!");
registry.register_with_name("my_crate::punctuate", move |text: String| {
format!("{}{}", text, punct)
});
```
# Objective
- Right now `DynamicEnum::is_dynamic()` is returning `false`. I don't
think this was expected, since the rest of `Dynamic*` types return
`true`.
## Solution
- Making `DynamicEnum::is_dynamic()` return true
## Testing
- Added an extra unit test to verify that `.is_dynamic()` returns
`true`.
# Objective
The goal with this PR is to allow the use of types that don't implement
`Reflect` within the reflection API.
Rust's [orphan
rule](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html#implementing-a-trait-on-a-type)
prevents implementing a trait on an external type when neither type nor
trait are owned by the implementor. This means that if a crate,
`cool_rust_lib`, defines a type, `Foo`, then a user cannot use it with
reflection. What this means is that we have to ignore it most of the
time:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct {
#[reflect(ignore)]
data: cool_rust_lib::Foo
}
```
Obviously, it's impossible to implement `Reflect` on `Foo`. But does it
*have* to be?
Most of reflection doesn't deal with concrete types— it's almost all
using `dyn Reflect`. And being very metadata-driven, it should
theoretically be possible. I mean,
[`serde`](https://serde.rs/remote-derive.html) does it.
## Solution
> Special thanks to @danielhenrymantilla for their help reviewing this
PR and offering wisdom wrt safety.
Taking a page out of `serde`'s book, this PR adds the ability to easily
use "remote types" with reflection. In this context, a "remote type" is
the external type for which we have no ability to implement `Reflect`.
This adds the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro, which is used to
generate "remote type wrappers". All you have to do is define the
wrapper exactly the same as the remote type's definition:
```rust
// Pretend this is our external crate
mod cool_rust_lib {
#[derive(Default)]
struct Foo {
pub value: String
}
}
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
```
> **Note:** All fields in the external type *must* be public. This could
be addressed with a separate getter/setter attribute either in this PR
or in another one.
The macro takes this user-defined item and transforms it into a newtype
wrapper around the external type, marking it as `#[repr(transparent)]`.
The fields/variants defined by the user are simply used to build out the
reflection impls.
Additionally, it generates an implementation of the new trait,
`ReflectRemote`, which helps prevent accidental misuses of this API.
Therefore, the output generated by the macro would look something like:
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
struct FooWrapper(pub cool_rust_lib::Foo);
impl ReflectRemote for FooWrapper {
type Remote = cool_rust_lib::Foo;
// transmutation methods...
}
// reflection impls...
// these will acknowledge and make use of the `value` field
```
Internally, the reflection API will pass around the `FooWrapper` and
[transmute](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/mem/fn.transmute.html) it
where necessary. All we have to do is then tell `Reflect` to do that. So
rather than ignoring the field, we tell `Reflect` to use our wrapper
using the `#[reflect(remote = ...)]` field attribute:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct {
#[reflect(remote = FooWrapper)]
data: cool_rust_lib::Foo
}
```
#### Other Macros & Type Data
Because this macro consumes the defined item and generates a new one, we
can't just put our macros anywhere. All macros that should be passed to
the generated struct need to come *below* this macro. For example, to
derive `Default` and register its associated type data:
```rust
// ✅ GOOD
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
#[derive(Default)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
// ❌ BAD
#[derive(Default)]
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
```
#### Generics
Generics are forwarded to the generated struct as well. They should also
be defined in the same order:
```rust
#[reflect_remote(RemoteGeneric<'a, T1, T2>)]
struct GenericWrapper<'a, T1, T2> {
pub foo: &'a T1,
pub bar: &'a T2,
}
```
> Naming does *not* need to match the original definition's. Only order
matters here.
> Also note that the code above is just a demonstration and doesn't
actually compile since we'd need to enforce certain bounds (e.g. `T1:
Reflect`, `'a: 'static`, etc.)
#### Nesting
And, yes, you can nest remote types:
```rust
#[reflect_remote(RemoteOuter)]
struct OuterWrapper {
#[reflect(remote = InnerWrapper)]
pub inner: RemoteInner
}
#[reflect_remote(RemoteInner)]
struct InnerWrapper(usize);
```
#### Assertions
This macro will also generate some compile-time assertions to ensure
that the correct types are used. It's important we catch this early so
users don't have to wait for something to panic. And it also helps keep
our `unsafe` a little safer.
For example, a wrapper definition that does not match its corresponding
remote type will result in an error:
```rust
mod external_crate {
pub struct TheirStruct(pub u32);
}
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirStruct)]
struct MyStruct(pub String); // ERROR: expected type `u32` but found `String`
```
<details>
<summary>Generated Assertion</summary>
```rust
const _: () = {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#[allow(unused_variables)]
#[allow(unused_assignments)]
#[allow(unreachable_patterns)]
#[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)]
fn assert_wrapper_definition_matches_remote_type(
mut __remote__: external_crate::TheirStruct,
) {
__remote__.0 = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<String> { None })().unwrap();
}
};
```
</details>
Additionally, using the incorrect type in a `#[reflect(remote = ...)]`
attribute should result in an error:
```rust
mod external_crate {
pub struct TheirFoo(pub u32);
pub struct TheirBar(pub i32);
}
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirFoo)]
struct MyFoo(pub u32);
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirBar)]
struct MyBar(pub i32);
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyStruct {
#[reflect(remote = MyBar)] // ERROR: expected type `TheirFoo` but found struct `TheirBar`
foo: external_crate::TheirFoo
}
```
<details>
<summary>Generated Assertion</summary>
```rust
const _: () = {
struct RemoteFieldAssertions;
impl RemoteFieldAssertions {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)]
fn assert__foo__is_valid_remote() {
let _: <MyBar as bevy_reflect::ReflectRemote>::Remote = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<external_crate::TheirFoo> {
None
})().unwrap();
}
}
};
```
</details>
### Discussion
There are a couple points that I think still need discussion or
validation.
- [x] 1. `Any` shenanigans
~~If we wanted to downcast our remote type from a `dyn Reflect`, we'd
have to first downcast to the wrapper then extract the inner type. This
PR has a [commit](b840db9f74cb6d357f951cb11b150d46bac89ee2) that
addresses this by making all the `Reflect::*any` methods return the
inner type rather than the wrapper type. This allows us to downcast
directly to our remote type.~~
~~However, I'm not sure if this is something we want to do. For
unknowing users, it could be confusing and seemingly inconsistent. Is it
worth keeping? Or should this behavior be removed?~~
I think this should be fine. The remote wrapper is an implementation
detail and users should not need to downcast to the wrapper type. Feel
free to let me know if there are other opinions on this though!
- [x] 2. Implementing `Deref/DerefMut` and `From`
~~We don't currently do this, but should we implement other traits on
the generated transparent struct? We could implement `Deref`/`DerefMut`
to easily access the inner type. And we could implement `From` for
easier conversion between the two types (e.g. `T: Into<Foo>`).~~ As
mentioned in the comments, we probably don't need to do this. Again, the
remote wrapper is an implementation detail, and should generally not be
used directly.
- [x] 3. ~~Should we define a getter/setter field attribute in this PR
as well or leave it for a future one?~~ I think this should be saved for
a future PR
- [ ] 4. Any foreseeable issues with this implementation?
#### Alternatives
One alternative to defining our own `ReflectRemote` would be to use
[bytemuck's
`TransparentWrapper`](https://docs.rs/bytemuck/1.13.1/bytemuck/trait.TransparentWrapper.html)
(as suggested by @danielhenrymantilla).
This is definitely a viable option, as `ReflectRemote` is pretty much
the same thing as `TransparentWrapper`. However, the cost would be
bringing in a new crate— though, it is already in use in a few other
sub-crates like bevy_render.
I think we're okay just defining `ReflectRemote` ourselves, but we can
go the bytemuck route if we'd prefer offloading that work to another
crate.
---
## Changelog
* Added the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro to allow `Reflect`
to be used on remote types
* Added `ReflectRemote` trait for ensuring proper remote wrapper usage
# Objective
- Fixes#14697
## Solution
This PR modifies the existing `all_tuples!` macro to optionally accept a
`#[doc(fake_variadic)]` attribute in its input. If the attribute is
present, each invocation of the impl macro gets the correct attributes
(i.e. the first impl receives `#[doc(fake_variadic)]` while the other
impls are hidden using `#[doc(hidden)]`.
Impls for the empty tuple (unit type) are left untouched (that's what
the [standard
library](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/cmp/trait.PartialEq.html#impl-PartialEq-for-())
and
[serde](https://docs.rs/serde/latest/serde/trait.Serialize.html#impl-Serialize-for-())
do).
To work around https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/8811 and to get
impls on re-exports to correctly show up as variadic, `--cfg docsrs_dep`
is passed when building the docs for the toplevel `bevy` crate.
`#[doc(fake_variadic)]` only works on tuples and fn pointers, so impls
for structs like `AnyOf<(T1, T2, ..., Tn)>` are unchanged.
## Testing
I built the docs locally using `RUSTDOCFLAGS='--cfg docsrs'
RUSTFLAGS='--cfg docsrs_dep' cargo +nightly doc --no-deps --workspace`
and checked the documentation page of a trait both in its original crate
and the re-exported version in `bevy`.
The description should correctly mention for how many tuple items the
trait is implemented.
I added `rustc-args` for docs.rs to the `bevy` crate, I hope there
aren't any other notable crates that re-export `#[doc(fake_variadic)]`
traits.
---
## Showcase
`bevy_ecs::query::QueryData`:
<img width="1015" alt="Screenshot 2024-08-12 at 16 41 28"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d40136ed-6731-475f-91a0-9df255cd24e3">
`bevy::ecs::query::QueryData` (re-export):
<img width="1005" alt="Screenshot 2024-08-12 at 16 42 57"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/71d44cf0-0ab0-48b0-9a51-5ce332594e12">
## Original Description
<details>
Resolves#14697
Submitting as a draft for now, very WIP.
Unfortunately, the docs don't show the variadics nicely when looking at
reexported items.
For example:
`bevy_ecs::bundle::Bundle` correctly shows the variadic impl:
while `bevy::ecs::bundle::Bundle` (the reexport) shows all the impls
(not good):
Built using `RUSTDOCFLAGS='--cfg docsrs' cargo +nightly doc --workspace
--no-deps` (`--no-deps` because of wgpu-core).
Maybe I missed something or this is a limitation in the *totally not
private* `#[doc(fake_variadic)]` thingy. In any case I desperately need
some sleep now :))
</details>
# Objective
- Implements the [Unique Reflect
RFC](https://github.com/nicopap/rfcs/blob/bevy-reflect-api/rfcs/56-better-reflect.md).
## Solution
- Implements the RFC.
- This implementation differs in some ways from the RFC:
- In the RFC, it was suggested `Reflect: Any` but `PartialReflect:
?Any`. During initial implementation I tried this, but we assume the
`PartialReflect: 'static` in a lot of places and the changes required
crept out of the scope of this PR.
- `PartialReflect::try_into_reflect` originally returned `Option<Box<dyn
Reflect>>` but i changed this to `Result<Box<dyn Reflect>, Box<dyn
PartialReflect>>` since the method takes by value and otherwise there
would be no way to recover the type. `as_full` and `as_full_mut` both
still return `Option<&(mut) dyn Reflect>`.
---
## Changelog
- Added `PartialReflect`.
- `Reflect` is now a subtrait of `PartialReflect`.
- Moved most methods on `Reflect` to the new `PartialReflect`.
- Added `PartialReflect::{as_partial_reflect, as_partial_reflect_mut,
into_partial_reflect}`.
- Added `PartialReflect::{try_as_reflect, try_as_reflect_mut,
try_into_reflect}`.
- Added `<dyn PartialReflect>::{try_downcast_ref, try_downcast_mut,
try_downcast, try_take}` supplementing the methods on `dyn Reflect`.
## Migration Guide
- Most instances of `dyn Reflect` should be changed to `dyn
PartialReflect` which is less restrictive, however trait bounds should
generally stay as `T: Reflect`.
- The new `PartialReflect::{as_partial_reflect, as_partial_reflect_mut,
into_partial_reflect, try_as_reflect, try_as_reflect_mut,
try_into_reflect}` methods as well as `Reflect::{as_reflect,
as_reflect_mut, into_reflect}` will need to be implemented for manual
implementors of `Reflect`.
## Future Work
- This PR is designed to be followed up by another "Unique Reflect Phase
2" that addresses the following points:
- Investigate making serialization revolve around `Reflect` instead of
`PartialReflect`.
- [Remove the `try_*` methods on `dyn PartialReflect` since they are
stop
gaps](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/7207#discussion_r1083476050).
- Investigate usages like `ReflectComponent`. In the places they
currently use `PartialReflect`, should they be changed to use `Reflect`?
- Merging this opens the door to lots of reflection features we haven't
been able to implement.
- We could re-add [the `Reflectable`
trait](8e3488c880/crates/bevy_reflect/src/reflect.rs (L337-L342))
and make `FromReflect` a requirement to improve [`FromReflect`
ergonomics](https://github.com/bevyengine/rfcs/pull/59). This is
currently not possible because dynamic types cannot sensibly be
`FromReflect`.
- Since this is an alternative to #5772, #5781 would be made cleaner.
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
The `dynamic_types` example was missing a reference to the newly added
`DynamicSet` type.
## Solution
Add `DynamicSet` to the `dynamic_types` example.
For parity with the other dynamic types, I also implemented
`FromIterator<T: Reflect>`, `FromIterator<Box<dyn Reflect>>`, and
`IntoIterator for &DynamicSet`.
## Testing
You can run the example locally:
```
cargo run --example dynamic_types
```
# Objective
As pointed out by @SkiFire13 on
[Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1270624366119485441),
I was incorrect in #14641 regarding the type name of anonymous
functions. I had stated that they will return something like `fn(i32,
i32) -> i32`, but this is wrong. They actually behave like closures
(despite not technically being closures) and return something more like
`foo::bar::{{closure}}`.
This isn't a major issue because the reasoning behind #14641 still
stands. However, the internal documentation should probably be updated
so future contributors don't believe the lies I left behind.
## Solution
Updated the internal documentation for `create_info` to reflect the
actual type name of an anonymous function.
In that same module, I also added a test for function pointers and
updated all tests to include sanity checks for the `std::any::type_name`
of each category of callable.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
# Objective
### TL;DR
#14098 added the `FunctionRegistry` but had some last minute
complications due to anonymous functions. It ended up going with a
"required name" approach to ensure anonymous functions would always have
a name.
However, this approach isn't ideal for named functions since, by
definition, they will always have a name.
Therefore, this PR aims to modify function reflection such that we can
make function registration easier for named functions, while still
allowing anonymous functions to be registered as well.
### Context
Function registration (#14098) ran into a little problem: anonymous
functions.
Anonymous functions, including function pointers, have very non-unique
type names. For example, the anonymous function `|a: i32, b: i32| a + b`
has the type name of `fn(i32, i32) -> i32`. This obviously means we'd
conflict with another function like `|a: i32, b: i32| a - b`.
The solution that #14098 landed on was to always require a name during
function registration.
The downside with this is that named functions (e.g. `fn add(a: i32, b:
i32) -> i32 { a + b }`) had to redundantly provide a name. Additionally,
manually constructed `DynamicFunction`s also ran into this ergonomics
issue.
I don't entirely know how the function registry will be used, but I have
a strong suspicion that most of its registrations will either be named
functions or manually constructed `DynamicFunction`s, with anonymous
functions only being used here and there for quick prototyping or adding
small functionality.
Why then should the API prioritize the anonymous function use case by
always requiring a name during registration?
#### Telling Functions Apart
Rust doesn't provide a lot of out-of-the-box tools for reflecting
functions. One of the biggest hurdles in attempting to solve the problem
outlined above would be to somehow tell the different kinds of functions
apart.
Let's briefly recap on the categories of functions in Rust:
| Category | Example |
| ------------------ | ----------------------------------------- |
| Named function | `fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 { a + b }` |
| Closure | `\|a: i32\| a + captured_variable` |
| Anonymous function | `\|a: i32, b: i32\| a + b` |
| Function pointer | `fn(i32, i32) -> i32` |
My first thought was to try and differentiate these categories based on
their size. However, we can see that this doesn't quite work:
| Category | `size_of` |
| ------------------ | --------- |
| Named function | 0 |
| Closure | 0+ |
| Anonymous function | 0 |
| Function pointer | 8 |
Not only does this not tell anonymous functions from named ones, but it
struggles with pretty much all of them.
My second then was to differentiate based on type name:
| Category | `type_name` |
| ------------------ | ----------------------- |
| Named function | `foo::bar::baz` |
| Closure | `foo::bar::{{closure}}` |
| Anonymous function | `fn() -> String` |
| Function pointer | `fn() -> String` |
This is much better. While it can't distinguish between function
pointers and anonymous functions, this doesn't matter too much since we
only care about whether we can _name_ the function.
So why didn't we implement this in #14098?
#### Relying on `type_name`
While this solution was known about while working on #14098, it was left
out from that PR due to it being potentially controversial.
The [docs](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/any/fn.type_name.html)
for `std::any::type_name` state:
> The returned string must not be considered to be a unique identifier
of a type as multiple types may map to the same type name. Similarly,
there is no guarantee that all parts of a type will appear in the
returned string: for example, lifetime specifiers are currently not
included. In addition, the output may change between versions of the
compiler.
So that's it then? We can't use `type_name`?
Well, this statement isn't so much a rule as it is a guideline. And Bevy
is no stranger to bending the rules to make things work or to improve
ergonomics. Remember that before `TypePath`, Bevy's scene system was
entirely dependent on `type_name`. Not to mention that `type_name` is
being used as a key into both the `TypeRegistry` and the
`FunctionRegistry`.
Bevy's practices aside, can we reliably use `type_name` for this?
My answer would be "yes".
Anonymous functions are anonymous. They have no name. There's nothing
Rust could do to give them a name apart from generating a random string
of characters. But remember that this is a diagnostic tool, it doesn't
make sense to obfuscate the type by randomizing the output. So changing
it to be anything other than what it is now is very unlikely.
The only changes that I could potentially see happening are:
1. Closures replace `{{closure}}` with the name of their variable
2. Lifetimes are included in the output
I don't think the first is likely to happen, but if it does then it
actually works out in our favor: closures are now named!
The second point is probably the likeliest. However, adding lifetimes
doesn't mean we can't still rely on `type_name` to determine whether or
not a function is named. So we should be okay in this case as well.
## Solution
Parse the `type_name` of the function in the `TypedFunction` impl to
determine if the function is named or anonymous.
This once again makes `FunctionInfo::name` optional. For manual
constructions of `DynamicFunction`, `FunctionInfo::named` or
``FunctionInfo::anonymous` can be used.
The `FunctionRegistry` API has also been reworked to account for this
change.
`FunctionRegistry::register` no longer takes a name and instead takes it
from the supplied function, returning a
`FunctionRegistrationError::MissingName` error if the name is `None`.
This also doubles as a replacement for the old
`FunctionRegistry::register_dynamic` method, which has been removed.
To handle anonymous functions, a `FunctionRegistry::register_with_name`
method has been added. This works in the same way
`FunctionRegistry::register` used to work before this PR.
The overwriting methods have been updated in a similar manner, with
modifications to `FunctionRegistry::overwrite_registration`, the removal
of `FunctionRegistry::overwrite_registration_dynamic`, and the addition
of `FunctionRegistry::overwrite_registration_with_name`.
This PR also updates the methods on `App` in a similar way:
`App::register_function` no longer requires a name argument and
`App::register_function_with_name` has been added to handle anonymous
functions (and eventually closures).
## Testing
You can run the tests locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect --features functions
```
---
## 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.
> [!note]
> This list is not exhaustive. It only contains some of the most
important changes.
`FunctionRegistry::register` no longer requires a name string for named
functions. Anonymous functions, however, need to be registered using
`FunctionRegistry::register_with_name`.
```rust
// BEFORE
registry
.register(std::any::type_name_of_val(&foo), foo)?
.register("bar", || println!("Hello world!"));
// AFTER
registry
.register(foo)?
.register_with_name("bar", || println!("Hello world!"));
```
`FunctionInfo::name` is now optional. Anonymous functions and closures
will now have their name set to `None` by default. Additionally,
`FunctionInfo::new` has been renamed to `FunctionInfo::named`.
# Objective
Support for reflecting set-like types (e.g. `HashSet`) was added in
#13014. However, we didn't add any serialization tests to verify that
serialization works as expected.
## Solution
Update the serde tests.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
Basically it's https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/13792 with the
bumped versions of `encase` and `hexasphere`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Robert Swain <robert.swain@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
# Objective
#13152 added support for reflecting functions. Now, we need a way to
register those functions such that they may be accessed anywhere within
the ECS.
## Solution
Added a `FunctionRegistry` type similar to `TypeRegistry`.
This allows a function to be registered and retrieved by name.
```rust
fn foo() -> i32 {
123
}
let mut registry = FunctionRegistry::default();
registry.register("my_function", foo);
let function = registry.get_mut("my_function").unwrap();
let value = function.call(ArgList::new()).unwrap().unwrap_owned();
assert_eq!(value.downcast_ref::<i32>(), Some(&123));
```
Additionally, I added an `AppFunctionRegistry` resource which wraps a
`FunctionRegistryArc`. Functions can be registered into this resource
using `App::register_function` or by getting a mutable reference to the
resource itself.
### Limitations
#### `Send + Sync`
In order to get this registry to work across threads, it needs to be
`Send + Sync`. This means that `DynamicFunction` needs to be `Send +
Sync`, which means that its internal function also needs to be `Send +
Sync`.
In most cases, this won't be an issue because standard Rust functions
(the type most likely to be registered) are always `Send + Sync`.
Additionally, closures tend to be `Send + Sync` as well, granted they
don't capture any `!Send` or `!Sync` variables.
This PR adds this `Send + Sync` requirement, but as mentioned above, it
hopefully shouldn't be too big of an issue.
#### Closures
Unfortunately, closures can't be registered yet. This will likely be
explored and added in a followup PR.
### Future Work
Besides addressing the limitations listed above, another thing we could
look into is improving the lookup of registered functions. One aspect is
in the performance of hashing strings. The other is in the developer
experience of having to call `std::any::type_name_of_val` to get the
name of their function (assuming they didn't give it a custom name).
## Testing
You can run the tests locally with:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Changelog
- Added `FunctionRegistry`
- Added `AppFunctionRegistry` (a `Resource` available from `bevy_ecs`)
- Added `FunctionRegistryArc`
- Added `FunctionRegistrationError`
- Added `reflect_functions` feature to `bevy_ecs` and `bevy_app`
- `FunctionInfo` is no longer `Default`
- `DynamicFunction` now requires its wrapped function be `Send + Sync`
## 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.
`DynamicFunction` (both those created manually and those created with
`IntoFunction`), now require `Send + Sync`. All standard Rust functions
should meet that requirement. Closures, on the other hand, may not if
they capture any `!Send` or `!Sync` variables from its environment.
Fixes#14418
Note that this does not add AtomicPtr, which would need its own special
casing support, just the regular value types.
Also, I was forced to be opinionated about which Ordering to use, so I
chose SeqCst as the strictest by default.
# Objective
- Fix issue #2611
## Solution
- Add `--generate-link-to-definition` to all the `rustdoc-args` arrays
in the `Cargo.toml`s (for docs.rs)
- Add `--generate-link-to-definition` to the `RUSTDOCFLAGS` environment
variable in the docs workflow (for dev-docs.bevyengine.org)
- Document all the workspace crates in the docs workflow (needed because
otherwise only the source code of the `bevy` package will be included,
making the argument useless)
- I think this also fixes#3662, since it fixes the bug on
dev-docs.bevyengine.org, while on docs.rs it has been fixed for a while
on their side.
---
## Changelog
- The source code viewer on docs.rs now includes links to the
definitions.
# Objective
I just wanted to inspect `HashSet`s in `bevy-inspector-egui` but I
noticed that it didn't work for some reason. A few minutes later I found
myself looking into the bevy reflect impls noticing that `HashSet`s have
been covered only rudimentary up until now.
## Solution
I'm not sure if this is overkill (especially the first bullet), but
here's a list of the changes:
- created a whole new trait and enum variants for `ReflectRef` and the
like called `Set`
- mostly oriented myself at the `Map` trait and made the necessary
changes until RA was happy
- create macro `impl_reflect_for_hashset!` and call it on `std::HashSet`
and `hashbrown::HashSet`
Extra notes:
- no `get_mut` or `get_mut_at` mirroring the `std::HashSet`
- `insert[_boxed]` and `remove` return `bool` mirroring `std::HashSet`,
additionally that bool is reflect as I thought that would be how we
handle things in bevy reflect, but I'm not sure on this
- ser/de are handled via `SeqAccess`
- I'm not sure about the general deduplication property of this impl of
`Set` that is generally expected? I'm also not sure yet if `Map` does
provide this. This mainly refers to the `Dynamic[...]` structs
- I'm not sure if there are other methods missing from the `trait`, I
felt like `contains` or the set-operations (union/diff/...) could've
been helpful, but I wanted to get out the bare minimum for feedback
first
---
## Changelog
### Added
- `Set` trait for `bevy_reflect`
### Changed
- `std::collections::HashSet` and `bevy_utils::hashbrown::HashSet` now
implement a more complete set of reflect functionalities instead of
"just" `reflect_value`
- `TypeInfo` contains a new variant `Set` that contains `SetInfo`
- `ReflectKind` contains a new variant `Set`
- `ReflectRef` contains a new variant `Set`
- `ReflectMut` contains a new variant `Set`
- `ReflectOwned` contains a new variant `Set`
## Migration Guide
- The new `Set` variants on the enums listed in the change section
should probably be considered by people working with this level of the
lib
### Help wanted!
I'm not sure if this change is able to break code. From my understanding
it shouldn't since we just add functionality but I'm not sure yet if
theres anything missing from my impl that would be normally provided by
`impl_reflect_value!`
# Objective
Many functions can be converted to `DynamicFunction` using
`IntoFunction`. Unfortunately, we are limited by Rust itself and the
implementations are far from exhaustive. For example, we can't convert
functions with more than 16 arguments. Additionally, we can't handle
returns with lifetimes not tied to the lifetime of the first argument.
In such cases, users will have to create their `DynamicFunction`
manually.
Let's take the following function:
```rust
fn get(index: usize, list: &Vec<String>) -> &String {
&list[index]
}
```
This function cannot be converted to a `DynamicFunction` via
`IntoFunction` due to the lifetime of the return value being tied to the
second argument. Therefore, we need to construct the `DynamicFunction`
manually:
```rust
DynamicFunction::new(
|mut args, info| {
let list = args
.pop()
.unwrap()
.take_ref::<Vec<String>>(&info.args()[1])?;
let index = args.pop().unwrap().take_owned::<usize>(&info.args()[0])?;
Ok(Return::Ref(get(index, list)))
},
FunctionInfo::new()
.with_name("get")
.with_args(vec![
ArgInfo:🆕:<usize>(0).with_name("index"),
ArgInfo:🆕:<&Vec<String>>(1).with_name("list"),
])
.with_return_info(ReturnInfo:🆕:<&String>()),
);
```
While still a small and straightforward snippet, there's a decent amount
going on here. There's a lot of room for improvements when it comes to
ergonomics and readability.
The goal of this PR is to address those issues.
## Solution
Improve the ergonomics and readability of manually created
`DynamicFunction`s.
Some of the major changes:
1. Removed the need for `&ArgInfo` when reifying arguments (i.e. the
`&info.args()[1]` calls)
2. Added additional `pop` methods on `ArgList` to handle both popping
and casting
3. Added `take` methods on `ArgList` for taking the arguments out in
order
4. Removed the need for `&FunctionInfo` in the internal closure (Change
1 made it no longer necessary)
5. Added methods to automatically handle generating `ArgInfo` and
`ReturnInfo`
With all these changes in place, we get something a lot nicer to both
write and look at:
```rust
DynamicFunction::new(
|mut args| {
let index = args.take::<usize>()?;
let list = args.take::<&Vec<String>>()?;
Ok(Return::Ref(get(index, list)))
},
FunctionInfo::new()
.with_name("get")
.with_arg::<usize>("index")
.with_arg::<&Vec<String>>("list")
.with_return::<&String>(),
);
```
Alternatively, to rely on type inference for taking arguments, you could
do:
```rust
DynamicFunction::new(
|mut args| {
let index = args.take_owned()?;
let list = args.take_ref()?;
Ok(Return::Ref(get(index, list)))
},
FunctionInfo::new()
.with_name("get")
.with_arg::<usize>("index")
.with_arg::<&Vec<String>>("list")
.with_return::<&String>(),
);
```
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Changelog
- Removed `&ArgInfo` argument from `FromArg::from_arg` trait method
- Removed `&ArgInfo` argument from `Arg::take_***` methods
- Added `ArgValue`
- `Arg` is now a struct containing an `ArgValue` and an argument `index`
- `Arg::take_***` methods now require `T` is also `TypePath`
- Added `Arg::new`, `Arg::index`, `Arg::value`, `Arg::take_value`, and
`Arg::take` methods
- Replaced `ArgId` in `ArgError` with just the argument `index`
- Added `ArgError::EmptyArgList`
- Renamed `ArgList::push` to `ArgList::push_arg`
- Added `ArgList::pop_arg`, `ArgList::pop_owned`, `ArgList::pop_ref`,
and `ArgList::pop_mut`
- Added `ArgList::take_arg`, `ArgList::take_owned`, `ArgList::take_ref`,
`ArgList::take_mut`, and `ArgList::take`
- `ArgList::pop` is now generic
- Renamed `FunctionError::InvalidArgCount` to
`FunctionError::ArgCountMismatch`
- The closure given to `DynamicFunction::new` no longer has a
`&FunctionInfo` argument
- Added `FunctionInfo::with_arg`
- Added `FunctionInfo::with_return`
## 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.
* The `FromArg::from_arg` trait method and the `Arg::take_***` methods
no longer take a `&ArgInfo` argument.
* What used to be `Arg` is now `ArgValue`. `Arg` is now a struct which
contains an `ArgValue`.
* `Arg::take_***` methods now require `T` is also `TypePath`
* Instances of `id: ArgId` in `ArgError` have been replaced with `index:
usize`
* `ArgList::push` is now `ArgList::push_arg`. It also takes the new
`ArgValue` type.
* `ArgList::pop` has become `ArgList::pop_arg` and now returns
`ArgValue`. `Arg::pop` now takes a generic type and downcasts to that
type. It's recommended to use `ArgList::take` and friends instead since
they allow removing the arguments from the list in the order they were
pushed (rather than reverse order).
* `FunctionError::InvalidArgCount` is now
`FunctionError::ArgCountMismatch`
* The closure given to `DynamicFunction::new` no longer has a
`&FunctionInfo` argument. This argument can be removed.
# Objective
As mentioned in
[this](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/13152#issuecomment-2198387297)
comment, creating a function registry (see #14098) is a bit difficult
due to the requirements of `DynamicFunction`. Internally, a
`DynamicFunction` contains a `Box<dyn FnMut>` (the function that reifies
reflected arguments and calls the actual function), which requires `&mut
self` in order to be called.
This means that users would require a mutable reference to the function
registry for it to be useful— which isn't great. And they can't clone
the `DynamicFunction` either because cloning an `FnMut` isn't really
feasible (wrapping it in an `Arc` would allow it to be cloned but we
wouldn't be able to call the clone since we need a mutable reference to
the `FnMut`, which we can't get with multiple `Arc`s still alive,
requiring us to also slap in a `Mutex`, which adds additional overhead).
And we don't want to just replace the `dyn FnMut` with `dyn Fn` as that
would prevent reflecting closures that mutate their environment.
Instead, we need to introduce a new type to split the requirements of
`DynamicFunction`.
## Solution
Introduce new types for representing closures.
Specifically, this PR introduces `DynamicClosure` and
`DynamicClosureMut`. Similar to how `IntoFunction` exists for
`DynamicFunction`, two new traits were introduced: `IntoClosure` and
`IntoClosureMut`.
Now `DynamicFunction` stores a `dyn Fn` with a `'static` lifetime.
`DynamicClosure` also uses a `dyn Fn` but has a lifetime, `'env`, tied
to its environment. `DynamicClosureMut` is most like the old
`DynamicFunction`, keeping the `dyn FnMut` and also typing its lifetime,
`'env`, to the environment
Here are some comparison tables:
| | `DynamicFunction` | `DynamicClosure` | `DynamicClosureMut` |
| - | ----------------- | ---------------- | ------------------- |
| Callable with `&self` | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Callable with `&mut self` | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Allows for non-`'static` lifetimes | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
| | `IntoFunction` | `IntoClosure` | `IntoClosureMut` |
| - | -------------- | ------------- | ---------------- |
| Convert `fn` functions | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Convert `fn` methods | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Convert anonymous functions | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Convert closures that capture immutable references | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Convert closures that capture mutable references | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Convert closures that capture owned values | ❌[^1] | ✅ | ✅ |
[^1]: Due to limitations in Rust, `IntoFunction` can't be implemented
for just functions (unless we forced users to manually coerce them to
function pointers first). So closures that meet the trait requirements
_can technically_ be converted into a `DynamicFunction` as well. To both
future-proof and reduce confusion, though, we'll just pretend like this
isn't a thing.
```rust
let mut list: Vec<i32> = vec![1, 2, 3];
// `replace` is a closure that captures a mutable reference to `list`
let mut replace = |index: usize, value: i32| -> i32 {
let old_value = list[index];
list[index] = value;
old_value
};
// Convert the closure into a dynamic closure using `IntoClosureMut::into_closure_mut`
let mut func: DynamicClosureMut = replace.into_closure_mut();
// Dynamically call the closure:
let args = ArgList::default().push_owned(1_usize).push_owned(-2_i32);
let value = func.call_once(args).unwrap().unwrap_owned();
// Check the result:
assert_eq!(value.take::<i32>().unwrap(), 2);
assert_eq!(list, vec![1, -2, 3]);
```
### `ReflectFn`/`ReflectFnMut`
To make extending the function reflection system easier (the blanket
impls for `IntoFunction`, `IntoClosure`, and `IntoClosureMut` are all
incredibly short), this PR generalizes callables with two new traits:
`ReflectFn` and `ReflectFnMut`.
These traits mimic `Fn` and `FnMut` but allow for being called via
reflection. In fact, their blanket implementations are identical save
for `ReflectFn` being implemented over `Fn` types and `ReflectFnMut`
being implemented over `FnMut` types.
And just as `Fn` is a subtrait of `FnMut`, `ReflectFn` is a subtrait of
`ReflectFnMut`. So anywhere that expects a `ReflectFnMut` can also be
given a `ReflectFn`.
To reiterate, these traits aren't 100% necessary. They were added in
purely for extensibility. If we decide to split things up differently or
add new traits/types in the future, then those changes should be much
simpler to implement.
### `TypedFunction`
Because of the split into `ReflectFn` and `ReflectFnMut`, we needed a
new way to access the function type information. This PR moves that
concept over into `TypedFunction`.
Much like `Typed`, this provides a way to access a function's
`FunctionInfo`.
By splitting this trait out, it helps to ensure the other traits are
focused on a single responsibility.
### Internal Macros
The original function PR (#13152) implemented `IntoFunction` using a
macro which was passed into an `all_tuples!` macro invocation. Because
we needed the same functionality for these new traits, this PR has
copy+pasted that code for `ReflectFn`, `ReflectFnMut`, and
`TypedFunction`— albeit with some differences between them.
Originally, I was going to try and macro-ify the impls and where clauses
such that we wouldn't have to straight up duplicate a lot of this logic.
However, aside from being more complex in general, autocomplete just
does not play nice with such heavily nested macros (tried in both
RustRover and VSCode). And both of those problems told me that it just
wasn't worth it: we need to ensure the crate is easily maintainable,
even at the cost of duplicating code.
So instead, I made sure to simplify the macro code by removing all
fully-qualified syntax and cutting the where clauses down to the bare
essentials, which helps to clean up a lot of the visual noise. I also
tried my best to document the macro logic in certain areas (I may even
add a bit more) to help with maintainability for future devs.
### Documentation
Documentation for this module was a bit difficult for me. So many of
these traits and types are very interconnected. And each trait/type has
subtle differences that make documenting it in a single place, like at
the module level, difficult to do cleanly. Describing the valid
signatures is also challenging to do well.
Hopefully what I have here is okay. I think I did an okay job, but let
me know if there any thoughts on ways to improve it. We can also move
such a task to a followup PR for more focused discussion.
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Changelog
- Added `DynamicClosure` struct
- Added `DynamicClosureMut` struct
- Added `IntoClosure` trait
- Added `IntoClosureMut` trait
- Added `ReflectFn` trait
- Added `ReflectFnMut` trait
- Added `TypedFunction` trait
- `IntoFunction` now only works for standard Rust functions
- `IntoFunction` no longer takes a lifetime parameter
- `DynamicFunction::call` now only requires `&self`
- Removed `DynamicFunction::call_once`
- Changed the `IntoReturn::into_return` signature to include a where
clause
## 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.
### `IntoClosure`
`IntoFunction` now only works for standard Rust functions. Calling
`IntoFunction::into_function` on a closure that captures references to
its environment (either mutable or immutable), will no longer compile.
Instead, you will need to use either `IntoClosure::into_closure` to
create a `DynamicClosure` or `IntoClosureMut::into_closure_mut` to
create a `DynamicClosureMut`, depending on your needs:
```rust
let punct = String::from("!");
let print = |value: String| {
println!("{value}{punct}");
};
// BEFORE
let func: DynamicFunction = print.into_function();
// AFTER
let func: DynamicClosure = print.into_closure();
```
### `IntoFunction` lifetime
Additionally, `IntoFunction` no longer takes a lifetime parameter as it
always expects a `'static` lifetime. Usages will need to remove any
lifetime parameters:
```rust
// BEFORE
fn execute<'env, F: IntoFunction<'env, Marker>, Marker>(f: F) {/* ... */}
// AFTER
fn execute<F: IntoFunction<Marker>, Marker>(f: F) {/* ... */}
```
### `IntoReturn`
`IntoReturn::into_return` now has a where clause. Any manual
implementors will need to add this where clause to their implementation.
# Objective
The github action summary titles every compile test group as
`compile_fail_utils`.
## Solution
Manually specify group names for compile fail tests.
## Testing
- Wait for compile fail tests to run.
- Observe the generated summary.
# Objective
Implement FromIterator/IntoIterator for dynamic types where missing
Note:
- can't impl `IntoIterator` for `&Array` & co because of orphan rules
- `into_iter().collect()` is a no-op for `Vec`s because of
specialization
---
## Migration Guide
- Change `DynamicArray::from_vec` to `DynamicArray::from_iter`
# 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.
# Objective
There are times when we might know the type of a `TypeInfo` ahead of
time. Or we may have already checked it one way or another.
In such cases, it's a bit cumbersome to have to pattern match every time
we want to access the nested info:
```rust
if let TypeInfo::List(info) = <Vec<i32>>::type_info() {
// ...
} else {
panic!("expected list info");
}
```
Ideally, there would be a way to simply perform the cast down to
`ListInfo` since we already know it will succeed.
Or even if we don't, perhaps we just want a cleaner way of exiting a
function early (i.e. with the `?` operator).
## Solution
Taking a bit from
[`mirror-mirror`](https://docs.rs/mirror-mirror/latest/mirror_mirror/struct.TypeDescriptor.html#implementations),
`TypeInfo` now has methods for attempting a cast into the variant's info
type.
```rust
let info = <Vec<i32>>::type_info().as_list().unwrap();
// ...
```
These new conversion methods return a `Result` where the error type is a
new `TypeInfoError` enum.
A `Result` was chosen as the return type over `Option` because if we do
choose to `unwrap` it, the error message will give us some indication of
what went wrong. In other words, it can truly replace those instances
where we were panicking in the `else` case.
### Open Questions
1. Should the error types instead be a struct? I chose an enum for
future-proofing, but right now it only has one error state.
Alternatively, we could make it a reflect-wide casting error so it could
be used for similar methods on `ReflectRef` and friends.
2. I was going to do it in a separate PR but should I just go ahead and
add similar methods to `ReflectRef`, `ReflectMut`, and `ReflectOwned`? 🤔
3. Should we name these `try_as_***` instead of `as_***` since they
return a `Result`?
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Changelog
### Added
- `TypeInfoError` enum
- `TypeInfo::kind` method
- `TypeInfo::as_struct` method
- `TypeInfo::as_tuple_struct` method
- `TypeInfo::as_tuple` method
- `TypeInfo::as_list` method
- `TypeInfo::as_array` method
- `TypeInfo::as_map` method
- `TypeInfo::as_enum` method
- `TypeInfo::as_value` method
- `VariantInfoError` enum
- `VariantInfo::variant_type` method
- `VariantInfo::as_unit_variant` method
- `VariantInfo::as_tuple_variant` method
- `VariantInfo::as_struct_variant` method
# 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
- Bevy currently has lot of invalid intra-doc links, let's fix them!
- Also make CI test them, to avoid future regressions.
- Helps with #1983 (but doesn't fix it, as there could still be explicit
links to docs.rs that are broken)
## Solution
- Make `cargo r -p ci -- doc-check` check fail on warnings (could also
be changed to just some specific lints)
- Manually fix all the warnings (note that in some cases it was unclear
to me what the fix should have been, I'll try to highlight them in a
self-review)
# Objective
Fixes#14221
## Solution
Add indentation as suggested.
## Testing
Confirmed that
- This makes Clippy happy with rust beta
- Built docs visually look the same before/after
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>
# Objective
Looks like I accidentally disabled the reflection compile fail tests in
#13152. These should be re-enabled.
## Solution
Re-enable reflection compile fail tests.
## Testing
CI should pass. You can also test locally by navigating to
`crates/bevy_reflect/compile_fail/` and running:
```
cargo test --target-dir ../../../target
```
# 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
The error messages that appear when a value cannot be serialized or
deserialized via reflection could be slightly improved.
When one of these operations fails, some users are confused about how to
resolve the issue. I've spoken with a few who didn't know they could
register `ReflectSerialize` themselves. We should try to clarify this to
some degree in the error messages.
## Solution
Add some more detail to the error messages.
For example, replacing this:
```
Type 'core::ops::RangeInclusive<f32>' did not register ReflectSerialize
```
with this:
```
Type `core::ops::RangeInclusive<f32>` did not register the `ReflectSerialize` type data. For certain types, this may need to be registered manually using `register_type_data`
```
I also added a separate error message if the type was not registered in
the type registry at all:
```
Type `core::ops::RangeInclusive<f32>` is not registered in the type registry
```
## Testing
You can test locally by running:
```
cargo test --package bevy_reflect
```
---
## Changelog
- Added error message for missing type registration when serializing
reflect data
- Changed error message for missing `ReflectSerialize` registration when
serializing reflect data
- Changed error message for missing `ReflectDeserialize` registration
when deserializing reflect data
previously I worked on fixing issue #13646, back when the error message
did not include the type at all.
But that error message had room for improvement, so I included the
feedback of @alice-i-cecile and @MrGVSV.
The error message will now read `the given key (of type
bevy_reflect::tests::Foo) does not support hashing` or 'the given key
(of type bevy_reflect::DynamicStruct) does not support hashing' in case
of a dynamic struct that represents a hashable struct
i also added a new unit test for this new behaviour
(`reflect_map_no_hash_dynamic`).
Fixes#13646 (again)
---------
Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
If you try to add an object to the hashmap that is not capable of
hashing, the program panics. For easier debugging, the type for that
object should be included in the error message.
Fixes#13646.
## Solution
initially i tried calling std::any::type_name_of_val. this had the
problem that it would print something like dyn Box<dyn Reflect>, not
helpful. But since these objects all implement Reflect, i used
Reflect::type_path() instead. Previously, the error message was part of
a constant called HASH_ERROR. i changed that to a macro called
hash_error to print the type of that object more easily
## Testing
i adapted the unit test reflect_map_no_hash to expect the type in that
panic aswell
since this is my first contribution, please let me know if i have done
everything properly
# Objective
Fixes#13456
## Solution
Moved `bevy_math`'s `Reflect` impls from `bevy_reflect` to `bevy_math`.
### Quick note
I accidentally used the same commit message while resolving a merge
conflict (first time I had to resolve a conflict). Sorry about that.
