mirror of
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy
synced 2024-11-10 15:14:50 +00:00
b8832dc862
## Summary/Description This PR extends states to allow support for a wider variety of state types and patterns, by providing 3 distinct types of state: - Standard [`States`] can only be changed by manually setting the [`NextState<S>`] resource. These states are the baseline on which the other state types are built, and can be used on their own for many simple patterns. See the [state example](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/blob/latest/examples/ecs/state.rs) for a simple use case - these are the states that existed so far in Bevy. - [`SubStates`] are children of other states - they can be changed manually using [`NextState<S>`], but are removed from the [`World`] if the source states aren't in the right state. See the [sub_states example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/sub_states.rs) for a simple use case based on the derive macro, or read the trait docs for more complex scenarios. - [`ComputedStates`] are fully derived from other states - they provide a [`compute`](ComputedStates::compute) method that takes in the source states and returns their derived value. They are particularly useful for situations where a simplified view of the source states is necessary - such as having an `InAMenu` computed state derived from a source state that defines multiple distinct menus. See the [computed state example](https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/blob/derived_state/examples/ecs/computed_states.rscomputed_states.rs) to see a sampling of uses for these states. # Objective This PR is another attempt at allowing Bevy to better handle complex state objects in a manner that doesn't rely on strict equality. While my previous attempts (https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10088 and https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/9957) relied on complex matching capacities at the point of adding a system to application, this one instead relies on deterministically deriving simple states from more complex ones. As a result, it does not require any special macros, nor does it change any other interactions with the state system once you define and add your derived state. It also maintains a degree of distinction between `State` and just normal application state - your derivations have to end up being discreet pre-determined values, meaning there is less of a risk/temptation to place a significant amount of logic and data within a given state. ### Addition - Sub States closes #9942 After some conversation with Maintainers & SMEs, a significant concern was that people might attempt to use this feature as if it were sub-states, and find themselves unable to use it appropriately. Since `ComputedState` is mainly a state matching feature, while `SubStates` are more of a state mutation related feature - but one that is easy to add with the help of the machinery introduced by `ComputedState`, it was added here as well. The relevant discussion is here: https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1200556329803186316 ## Solution closes #11358 The solution is to create a new type of state - one implementing `ComputedStates` - which is deterministically tied to one or more other states. Implementors write a function to transform the source states into the computed state, and it gets triggered whenever one of the source states changes. In addition, we added the `FreelyMutableState` trait , which is implemented as part of the derive macro for `States`. This allows us to limit use of `NextState<S>` to states that are actually mutable, preventing mis-use of `ComputedStates`. --- ## Changelog - Added `ComputedStates` trait - Added `FreelyMutableState` trait - Converted `NextState` resource to an Enum, with `Unchanged` and `Pending` - Added `App::add_computed_state::<S: ComputedStates>()`, to allow for easily adding derived states to an App. - Moved the `StateTransition` schedule label from `bevy_app` to `bevy_ecs` - but maintained the export in `bevy_app` for continuity. - Modified the process for updating states. Instead of just having an `apply_state_transition` system that can be added anywhere, we now have a multi-stage process that has to run within the `StateTransition` label. First, all the state changes are calculated - manual transitions rely on `apply_state_transition`, while computed transitions run their computation process before both call `internal_apply_state_transition` to apply the transition, send out the transition event, trigger dependent states, and record which exit/transition/enter schedules need to occur. Once all the states have been updated, the transition schedules are called - first the exit schedules, then transition schedules and finally enter schedules. - Added `SubStates` trait - Adjusted `apply_state_transition` to be a no-op if the `State<S>` resource doesn't exist ## Migration Guide If the user accessed the NextState resource's value directly or created them from scratch they will need to adjust to use the new enum variants: - if they created a `NextState(Some(S))` - they should now use `NextState::Pending(S)` - if they created a `NextState(None)` -they should now use `NextState::Unchanged` - if they matched on the `NextState` value, they would need to make the adjustments above If the user manually utilized `apply_state_transition`, they should instead use systems that trigger the `StateTransition` schedule. --- ## Future Work There is still some future potential work in the area, but I wanted to keep these potential features and changes separate to keep the scope here contained, and keep the core of it easy to understand and use. However, I do want to note some of these things, both as inspiration to others and an illustration of what this PR could unlock. - `NextState::Remove` - Now that the `State` related mechanisms all utilize options (#11417), it's fairly easy to add support for explicit state removal. And while `ComputedStates` can add and remove themselves, right now `FreelyMutableState`s can't be removed from within the state system. While it existed originally in this PR, it is a different question with a separate scope and usability concerns - so having it as it's own future PR seems like the best approach. This feature currently lives in a separate branch in my fork, and the differences between it and this PR can be seen here: https://github.com/lee-orr/bevy/pull/5 - `NextState::ReEnter` - this would allow you to trigger exit & entry systems for the current state type. We can potentially also add a `NextState::ReEnterRecirsive` to also re-trigger any states that depend on the current one. - More mechanisms for `State` updates - This PR would finally make states that aren't a set of exclusive Enums useful, and with that comes the question of setting state more effectively. Right now, to update a state you either need to fully create the new state, or include the `Res<Option<State<S>>>` resource in your system, clone the state, mutate it, and then use `NextState.set(my_mutated_state)` to make it the pending next state. There are a few other potential methods that could be implemented in future PRs: - Inverse Compute States - these would essentially be compute states that have an additional (manually defined) function that can be used to nudge the source states so that they result in the computed states having a given value. For example, you could use set the `IsPaused` state, and it would attempt to pause or unpause the game by modifying the `AppState` as needed. - Closure-based state modification - this would involve adding a `NextState.modify(f: impl Fn(Option<S> -> Option<S>)` method, and then you can pass in closures or function pointers to adjust the state as needed. - Message-based state modification - this would involve either creating states that can respond to specific messages, similar to Elm or Redux. These could either use the `NextState` mechanism or the Event mechanism. - ~`SubStates` - which are essentially a hybrid of computed and manual states. In the simplest (and most likely) version, they would work by having a computed element that determines whether the state should exist, and if it should has the capacity to add a new version in, but then any changes to it's content would be freely mutated.~ this feature is now part of this PR. See above. - Lastly, since states are getting more complex there might be value in moving them out of `bevy_ecs` and into their own crate, or at least out of the `schedule` module into a `states` module. #11087 As mentioned, all these future work elements are TBD and are explicitly not part of this PR - I just wanted to provide them as potential explorations for the future. --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Marcel Champagne <voiceofmarcel@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: MiniaczQ <xnetroidpl@gmail.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||