bevy/crates/bevy_reflect
Gino Valente 69541462c5
bevy_reflect: Add Reflectable trait (#5772)
# Objective

When deriving `Reflect`, users will notice that their generic arguments
also need to implement `Reflect`:

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo<T: Reflect> {
  value: T
}
```

This works well for now. However, as we want to do more with `Reflect`,
these bounds might need to change. For example, to get #4154 working, we
likely need to enforce the `GetTypeRegistration` trait. So now we have:

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo<T: Reflect + GetTypeRegistration> {
  value: T
}
```

Not great, but not horrible. However, we might then want to do something
as suggested in
[this](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/5745#issuecomment-1221389131)
comment and add a `ReflectTypeName` trait for stable type name support.
Well now we have:

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo<T: Reflect + GetTypeRegistration + ReflectTypeName> {
  value: T
}
```

Now imagine that for even two or three generic types. Yikes!

As the API changes it would be nice if users didn't need to manually
migrate their generic type bounds like this.

A lot of these traits are (or will/might be) core to the entire
reflection API. And although `Reflect` can't add them as supertraits for
object-safety reasons, they are still indirectly required for things to
function properly (manual implementors will know how easy it is to
forget to implement `GetTypeRegistration`). And they should all be
automatically implemented for user types anyways as long they're using
`#[derive(Reflect)]`.

## Solution

Add a "catch-all" trait called `Reflectable` whose supertraits are a
select handful of core reflection traits.

This allows us to consolidate all the examples above into this:

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo<T: Reflectable> {
  value: T
}
```

And as we experiment with the API, users can rest easy knowing they
don't need to migrate dozens upon dozens of types. It should all be
automatic!

## Discussion

1. Thoughts on the name `Reflectable`? Is it too easily confused with
`Reflect`? Or does it at least accurately describe that this contains
the core traits? If not, maybe `BaseReflect`?

---

## Changelog

- Added the `Reflectable` trait

---------

Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
2024-09-18 00:36:41 +00:00
..
compile_fail bevy_reflect: Update on_unimplemented attributes (#15110) 2024-09-09 16:26:17 +00:00
derive Apply unused_qualifications lint (#14828) 2024-08-21 12:29:33 +00:00
examples fix nightly clippy warnings (#6395) 2022-10-28 21:03:01 +00:00
src bevy_reflect: Add Reflectable trait (#5772) 2024-09-18 00:36:41 +00:00
Cargo.toml bevy_reflect: Contextual serialization error messages (#13888) 2024-09-09 17:52:40 +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)