bevy/examples/ecs/nondeterministic_system_order.rs
James Liu 04256735f6 Cleanup ScheduleBuildSettings (#7721)
# Objective
Fix #7440. Fix #7441. 

## Solution

 * Remove builder functions on `ScheduleBuildSettings` in favor of public fields, move docs to the fields.
 * Add `use_shortnames` and use it in `get_node_name` to feed it through `bevy_utils::get_short_name`.
2023-02-17 15:17:52 +00:00

93 lines
3.8 KiB
Rust

//! By default, Bevy systems run in parallel with each other.
//! Unless the order is explicitly specified, their relative order is nondeterministic.
//!
//! In many cases, this doesn't matter and is in fact desirable!
//! Consider two systems, one which writes to resource A, and the other which writes to resource B.
//! By allowing their order to be arbitrary, we can evaluate them greedily, based on the data that is free.
//! Because their data accesses are **compatible**, there is no **observable** difference created based on the order they are run.
//!
//! But if instead we have two systems mutating the same data, or one reading it and the other mutating,
//! then the actual observed value will vary based on the nondeterministic order of evaluation.
//! These observable conflicts are called **system execution order ambiguities**.
//!
//! This example demonstrates how you might detect and resolve (or silence) these ambiguities.
use bevy::{
ecs::schedule::{LogLevel, ScheduleBuildSettings},
prelude::*,
};
fn main() {
App::new()
// We can modify the reporting strategy for system execution order ambiguities on a per-schedule basis
.edit_schedule(CoreSchedule::Main, |schedule| {
schedule.set_build_settings(ScheduleBuildSettings {
ambiguity_detection: LogLevel::Warn,
..default()
});
})
.init_resource::<A>()
.init_resource::<B>()
// This pair of systems has an ambiguous order,
// as their data access conflicts, and there's no order between them.
.add_system(reads_a)
.add_system(writes_a)
// This pair of systems has conflicting data access,
// but it's resolved with an explicit ordering:
// the .after relationship here means that we will always double after adding.
.add_system(adds_one_to_b)
.add_system(doubles_b.after(adds_one_to_b))
// This system isn't ambiguous with adds_one_to_b,
// due to the transitive ordering created by our constraints:
// if A is before B is before C, then A must be before C as well.
.add_system(reads_b.after(doubles_b))
// This system will conflict with all of our writing systems
// but we've silenced its ambiguity with adds_one_to_b.
// This should only be done in the case of clear false positives:
// leave a comment in your code justifying the decision!
.add_system(reads_a_and_b.ambiguous_with(adds_one_to_b))
// Be mindful, internal ambiguities are reported too!
// If there are any ambiguities due solely to DefaultPlugins,
// or between DefaultPlugins and any of your third party plugins,
// please file a bug with the repo responsible!
// Only *you* can prevent nondeterministic bugs due to greedy parallelism.
.add_plugins(DefaultPlugins)
.run();
}
#[derive(Resource, Debug, Default)]
struct A(usize);
#[derive(Resource, Debug, Default)]
struct B(usize);
// Data access is determined solely on the basis of the types of the system's parameters
// Every implementation of the `SystemParam` and `WorldQuery` traits must declare which data is used
// and whether or not it is mutably accessed.
fn reads_a(_a: Res<A>) {}
fn writes_a(mut a: ResMut<A>) {
a.0 += 1;
}
fn adds_one_to_b(mut b: ResMut<B>) {
b.0 = b.0.saturating_add(1);
}
fn doubles_b(mut b: ResMut<B>) {
// This will overflow pretty rapidly otherwise
b.0 = b.0.saturating_mul(2);
}
fn reads_b(b: Res<B>) {
// This invariant is always true,
// because we've fixed the system order so doubling always occurs after adding.
assert!((b.0 % 2 == 0) || (b.0 == usize::MAX));
}
fn reads_a_and_b(a: Res<A>, b: Res<B>) {
// Only display the first few steps to avoid burying the ambiguities in the console
if b.0 < 10 {
info!("{}, {}", a.0, b.0);
}
}