bevy/crates/bevy_reflect
Gino Valente 423285cf1c
bevy_reflect: Store functions as DynamicClosure<'static> in FunctionRegistry (#14704)
# 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)
});
```
2024-08-17 00:20:47 +00:00
..
compile_fail bevy_reflect: Reflect remote types (#6042) 2024-08-12 19:12:53 +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: Store functions as DynamicClosure<'static> in FunctionRegistry (#14704) 2024-08-17 00:20:47 +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)