bevy/crates/bevy_reflect
Gino Valente 2b4180ca8f
bevy_reflect: Function reflection terminology refactor (#14813)
# 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
```
2024-08-19 21:52:36 +00:00
..
compile_fail bevy_reflect: Function reflection terminology refactor (#14813) 2024-08-19 21:52:36 +00:00
derive bevy_reflect: Reflect remote types (#6042) 2024-08-12 19:12:53 +00:00
examples fix nightly clippy warnings (#6395) 2022-10-28 21:03:01 +00:00
src bevy_reflect: Function reflection terminology refactor (#14813) 2024-08-19 21:52:36 +00:00
Cargo.toml Glam 0.28 update - adopted (#14613) 2024-08-06 01:28:00 +00:00
README.md reflect: implement the unique reflect rfc (#7207) 2024-08-12 17:01:41 +00:00

Bevy Reflect

License Crates.io Downloads Docs Discord

This crate enables you to dynamically interact with Rust types:

  • Derive the Reflect traits
  • Interact with fields using their names (for named structs) or indices (for tuple structs)
  • "Patch" your types with new values
  • Look up nested fields using "path strings"
  • Iterate over struct fields
  • Automatically serialize and deserialize via Serde (without explicit serde impls)
  • Trait "reflection"

Features

Derive the Reflect traits

// this will automatically implement the `Reflect` trait and the `Struct` trait (because the type is a struct)
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo {
    a: u32,
    b: Bar,
    c: Vec<i32>,
    d: Vec<Baz>,
}

// this will automatically implement the `Reflect` trait and the `TupleStruct` trait (because the type is a tuple struct)
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Bar(String);

#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Baz {
    value: f32,
}

// We will use this value to illustrate `bevy_reflect` features
let mut foo = Foo {
    a: 1,
    b: Bar("hello".to_string()),
    c: vec![1, 2],
    d: vec![Baz { value: 3.14 }],
};

Interact with fields using their names

assert_eq!(*foo.get_field::<u32>("a").unwrap(), 1);

*foo.get_field_mut::<u32>("a").unwrap() = 2;

assert_eq!(foo.a, 2);

"Patch" your types with new values

let mut dynamic_struct = DynamicStruct::default();
dynamic_struct.insert("a", 42u32);
dynamic_struct.insert("c", vec![3, 4, 5]);

foo.apply(&dynamic_struct);

assert_eq!(foo.a, 42);
assert_eq!(foo.c, vec![3, 4, 5]);

Look up nested fields using "path strings"

let value = *foo.get_path::<f32>("d[0].value").unwrap();
assert_eq!(value, 3.14);

Iterate over struct fields

for (i, value: &Reflect) in foo.iter_fields().enumerate() {
    let field_name = foo.name_at(i).unwrap();
    if let Some(value) = value.downcast_ref::<u32>() {
        println!("{} is a u32 with the value: {}", field_name, *value);
    }
}

Automatically serialize and deserialize via Serde (without explicit serde impls)

let mut registry = TypeRegistry::default();
registry.register::<u32>();
registry.register::<i32>();
registry.register::<f32>();
registry.register::<String>();
registry.register::<Bar>();
registry.register::<Baz>();

let serializer = ReflectSerializer::new(&foo, &registry);
let serialized = ron::ser::to_string_pretty(&serializer, ron::ser::PrettyConfig::default()).unwrap();

let mut deserializer = ron::de::Deserializer::from_str(&serialized).unwrap();
let reflect_deserializer = ReflectDeserializer::new(&registry);
let value = reflect_deserializer.deserialize(&mut deserializer).unwrap();
let dynamic_struct = value.take::<DynamicStruct>().unwrap();

assert!(foo.reflect_partial_eq(&dynamic_struct).unwrap());

Trait "reflection"

Call a trait on a given &dyn Reflect reference without knowing the underlying type!

#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(DoThing)]
struct MyType {
    value: String,
}

impl DoThing for MyType {
    fn do_thing(&self) -> String {
        format!("{} World!", self.value)
    }
}

#[reflect_trait]
pub trait DoThing {
    fn do_thing(&self) -> String;
}

// First, lets box our type as a Box<dyn Reflect>
let reflect_value: Box<dyn Reflect> = Box::new(MyType {
    value: "Hello".to_string(),
});

// This means we no longer have direct access to MyType or its methods. We can only call Reflect methods on reflect_value.
// What if we want to call `do_thing` on our type? We could downcast using reflect_value.downcast_ref::<MyType>(), but what if we
// don't know the type at compile time?

// Normally in rust we would be out of luck at this point. Lets use our new reflection powers to do something cool!
let mut type_registry = TypeRegistry::default();
type_registry.register::<MyType>();

// The #[reflect] attribute we put on our DoThing trait generated a new `ReflectDoThing` struct, which implements TypeData.
// This was added to MyType's TypeRegistration.
let reflect_do_thing = type_registry
    .get_type_data::<ReflectDoThing>(reflect_value.type_id())
    .unwrap();

// We can use this generated type to convert our `&dyn Reflect` reference to a `&dyn DoThing` reference
let my_trait: &dyn DoThing = reflect_do_thing.get(&*reflect_value).unwrap();

// Which means we can now call do_thing(). Magic!
println!("{}", my_trait.do_thing());

// This works because the #[reflect(MyTrait)] we put on MyType informed the Reflect derive to insert a new instance
// of ReflectDoThing into MyType's registration. The instance knows how to cast &dyn Reflect to &dyn DoThing, because it
// knows that &dyn Reflect should first be downcasted to &MyType, which can then be safely casted to &dyn DoThing

Why make this?

The whole point of Rust is static safety! Why build something that makes it easy to throw it all away?

  • Some problems are inherently dynamic (scripting, some types of serialization / deserialization)
  • Sometimes the dynamic way is easier
  • Sometimes the dynamic way puts less burden on your users to derive a bunch of traits (this was a big motivator for the Bevy project)