bevy/crates/bevy_reflect
Gino Valente a0cc636ea3
bevy_reflect: Anonymous function parsing (#14641)
# 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`.
2024-08-07 03:11:08 +00:00
..
compile_fail bevy_reflect: Add DynamicClosure and DynamicClosureMut (#14141) 2024-07-16 03:22:43 +00:00
derive Generate links to definition in source code pages on docs.rs and dev-docs.bevyengine.org (#12965) 2024-07-29 23:10:16 +00:00
examples fix nightly clippy warnings (#6395) 2022-10-28 21:03:01 +00:00
src bevy_reflect: Anonymous function parsing (#14641) 2024-08-07 03:11:08 +00:00
Cargo.toml Glam 0.28 update - adopted (#14613) 2024-08-06 01:28:00 +00:00
README.md add and fix shields in Readmes (#9993) 2023-10-15 00:52:31 +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)