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
# Objective
Emitting compile errors produces cleaner messages than panicking in a proc-macro.
## Solution
- Replace match-with-panic code with call to new `bevy_macro_utils::get_named_struct_fields` function
- Replace one use of match-with-panic for enums with inline match
_Aside:_ I'm also the maintainer of [`darling`](https://docs.rs/darling), a crate which provides a serde-like API for parsing macro inputs. I avoided using it here because it seemed like overkill, but if there are plans to add lots more attributes/macros then that might be a good way of offloading macro error handling.
Modifies the code emitted by `derive_label` to use fully-qualified type
names (e.g. `std::boxed::Box` instead of `Box`).
# Objective
- Using unqualified types here causes errors when the proc macro is used in contexts that locally define types with conflicting names (e.g. a local definition of `Box`).
## Solution
- Fully qualify standard types emitted by the proc macro code.
# Objective
- Our crevice is still called "crevice", which we can't use for a release
- Users would need to use our "crevice" directly to be able to use the derive macro
## Solution
- Rename crevice to bevy_crevice, and crevice-derive to bevy-crevice-derive
- Re-export it from bevy_render, and use it from bevy_render everywhere
- Fix derive macro to work either from bevy_render, from bevy_crevice, or from bevy
## Remaining
- It is currently re-exported as `bevy::render::bevy_crevice`, is it the path we want?
- After a brief suggestion to Cart, I changed the version to follow Bevy version instead of crevice, do we want that?
- Crevice README.md need to be updated
- in the `Cargo.toml`, there are a few things to change. How do we want to change them? How do we keep attributions to original Crevice?
```
authors = ["Lucien Greathouse <me@lpghatguy.com>"]
documentation = "https://docs.rs/crevice"
homepage = "https://github.com/LPGhatguy/crevice"
repository = "https://github.com/LPGhatguy/crevice"
```
Co-authored-by: François <8672791+mockersf@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Carter Anderson <mcanders1@gmail.com>
# Problem
Let's say I am writting a simple bevy plugin, and I want to depend on `bevy_ecs` crate instead of depending on the full `bevy`.
So I write the following:
*Cargo.toml*:
```toml
[dependencies]
bevy_ecs = { git = "https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy.git", rev = "94db0176fecfac7e7e9763f2dc7458a54c105886" }
```
*lib.rs*:
```rust
use bevy_ecs::prelude::*;
#[derive(Debug, Default, Component)
pub struct MyFancyComponent;
```
So far, so good. Everything works. But let's say I want to write some examples for using my plugin. And for theses I'd like to use the `bevy` crate, so that I can write complete examples (rendering stuff, etc.) that are simple and look like what the consumer of my plugin will do (`use bevy::prelude::*` and `DefaultPlugins`)
So I amend my *Cargo.toml*:
```toml
[dependencies]
bevy_ecs = { git = "https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy.git", rev = "94db0176fecfac7e7e9763f2dc7458a54c105886" }
[dev-dependencies]
bevy = { git = "https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy.git", rev = "94db0176fecfac7e7e9763f2dc7458a54c105886", default-features = false }
```
And that leads to a complilation error
```
error[E0433]: failed to resolve: use of undeclared crate or module `bevy`
```
Basically, because `bevy` is in the `dev-dependencies`, the macro (of the production code) decides to use the `bevy::ecs` path instead of `bevy_ecs`. But `bevy` is not available there.
## Solution
This PR fixes the problem. I amend the macro utility responsible of finding the path of a module.
If we try to find a path, we first test if this correspond to a crate that the user directly depend on. (Like, if we search for `bevy_ecs`, we first check if there is a `bevy_ecs` dependency). If yes, we can depend on that directly. Otherwise, we proceed with the existing logic (testing `bevy` and `bevy_internal`)
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>
This is a rather simple but wide change, and it involves adding a new `bevy_app_macros` crate. Let me know if there is a better way to do any of this!
---
# Objective
- Allow adding and accessing sub-apps by using a label instead of an index
## Solution
- Migrate the bevy label implementation and derive code to the `bevy_utils` and `bevy_macro_utils` crates and then add a new `SubAppLabel` trait to the `bevy_app` crate that is used when adding or getting a sub-app from an app.
