Relationships (non-fragmenting, one-to-many) #17398
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cart
commented
Jan 16, 2025
bushrat011899
approved these changes
Jan 16, 2025
| @@ -207,6 +210,7 @@ pub const ON_ADD: &str = "on_add"; | |||
| pub const ON_INSERT: &str = "on_insert"; | |||
| pub const ON_REPLACE: &str = "on_replace"; | |||
| pub const ON_REMOVE: &str = "on_remove"; | |||
| pub const ON_DESPAWN: &str = "on_despawn"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
An ON_DESPAWN hook is also a great outcome form this PR in of itself. I assume there's negligible performance impacts from the addition of this hook?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can benchmark, but I don't expect significant degradation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wouldn't expect any problems either, agreed.
physgun
reviewed
Jan 16, 2025
|
@cart I have no concerns about this at this stage and we have plenty of community review; feel free to merge when you feel it's ready. |
mcobzarenco
reviewed
Jan 18, 2025
Merged
nxsaken
reviewed
Jan 19, 2025
| /// #[relationship_target(relationship = Parent, despawn_descendants)] | ||
| /// pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>); | ||
| /// ``` | ||
| pub trait Relationship: Component + Sized { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason this is called Relationship and not Relation? I like the latter more since it's shorter
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suppose relationship is more accurate when describing specific instances of relations, though I'm also a fan of short names.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/relations-and-relationship
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2025
Fixes #17412 ## Objective `Parent` uses the "has a X" naming convention. There is increasing sentiment that we should use the "is a X" naming convention for relationships (following #17398). This leaves `Children` as-is because there is prevailing sentiment that `Children` is clearer than `ParentOf` in many cases (especially when treating it like a collection). This renames `Parent` to `ChildOf`. This is just the implementation PR. To discuss the path forward, do so in #17412. ## Migration Guide - The `Parent` component has been renamed to `ChildOf`.
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2025
# Objective After #17398, Bevy now has relations! We don't teach users how to make / work with these in the examples yet though, but we definitely should. ## Solution - Add a simple abstract example that goes over defining, spawning, traversing and removing a custom relations. - ~~Add `Relationship` and `RelationshipTarget` to the prelude: the trait methods are really helpful here.~~ - this causes subtle ambiguities with method names and weird compiler errors. Not doing it here! - Clean up related documentation that I referenced when writing this example. ## Testing `cargo run --example relationships` ## Notes to reviewers 1. Yes, I know that the cycle detection code could be more efficient. I decided to reduce the caching to avoid distracting from the broader point of "here's how you traverse relationships". 2. Instead of using an `App`, I've decide to use `World::run_system_once` + system functions defined inside of `main` to do something closer to literate programming. --------- Co-authored-by: Joona Aalto <jondolf.dev@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: MinerSebas <66798382+MinerSebas@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Kristoffer Søholm <k.soeholm@gmail.com>
6 tasks
mrchantey
pushed a commit
to mrchantey/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2025
This adds support for one-to-many non-fragmenting relationships (with planned paths for fragmenting and non-fragmenting many-to-many relationships). "Non-fragmenting" means that entities with the same relationship type, but different relationship targets, are not forced into separate tables (which would cause "table fragmentation"). Functionally, this fills a similar niche as the current Parent/Children system. The biggest differences are: 1. Relationships have simpler internals and significantly improved performance and UX. Commands and specialized APIs are no longer necessary to keep everything in sync. Just spawn entities with the relationship components you want and everything "just works". 2. Relationships are generalized. Bevy can provide additional built in relationships, and users can define their own. **REQUEST TO REVIEWERS**: _please don't leave top level comments and instead comment on specific lines of code. That way we can take advantage of threaded discussions. Also dont leave comments simply pointing out CI failures as I can read those just fine._ ## Built on top of what we have Relationships are implemented on top of the Bevy ECS features we already have: components, immutability, and hooks. This makes them immediately compatible with all of our existing (and future) APIs for querying, spawning, removing, scenes, reflection, etc. The fewer specialized APIs we need to build, maintain, and teach, the better. ## Why focus on one-to-many non-fragmenting first? 1. This allows us to improve Parent/Children relationships immediately, in a way that is reasonably uncontroversial. Switching our hierarchy to fragmenting relationships would have significant performance implications. ~~Flecs is heavily considering a switch to non-fragmenting relations after careful considerations of the performance tradeoffs.~~ _(Correction from @SanderMertens: Flecs is implementing non-fragmenting storage specialized for asset hierarchies, where asset hierarchies are many instances of small trees that have a well defined structure)_ 2. Adding generalized one-to-many relationships is currently a priority for the [Next Generation Scene / UI effort](bevyengine#14437). Specifically, we're interested in building reactions and observers on top. ## The changes This PR does the following: 1. Adds a generic one-to-many Relationship system 3. Ports the existing Parent/Children system to Relationships, which now lives in `bevy_ecs::hierarchy`. The old `bevy_hierarchy` crate has been removed. 4. Adds on_despawn component hooks 5. Relationships can opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior, meaning that the entire relationship hierarchy is despawned when `entity.despawn()` is called. The built in Parent/Children hierarchies enable this behavior, and `entity.despawn_recursive()` has been removed. 6. `world.spawn` now applies commands after spawning. This ensures that relationship bookkeeping happens immediately and removes the need to manually flush. This is in line with the equivalent behaviors recently added to the other APIs (ex: insert). 7. Removes the ValidParentCheckPlugin (system-driven / poll based) in favor of a `validate_parent_has_component` hook. ## Using Relationships The `Relationship` trait looks like this: ```rust pub trait Relationship: Component + Sized { type RelationshipSources: RelationshipSources<Relationship = Self>; fn get(&self) -> Entity; fn from(entity: Entity) -> Self; } ``` A relationship is a component that: 1. Is a simple wrapper over a "target" Entity. 2. Has a corresponding `RelationshipSources` component, which is a simple wrapper over a collection of entities. Every "target entity" targeted by a "source entity" with a `Relationship` has a `RelationshipSources` component, which contains every "source entity" that targets it. For example, the `Parent` component (as it currently exists in Bevy) is the `Relationship` component and the entity containing the Parent is the "source entity". The entity _inside_ the `Parent(Entity)` component is the "target entity". And that target entity has a `Children` component (which implements `RelationshipSources`). In practice, the Parent/Children relationship looks like this: ```rust #[derive(Relationship)] #[relationship(relationship_sources = Children)] pub struct Parent(pub Entity); #[derive(RelationshipSources)] #[relationship_sources(relationship = Parent)] pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>); ``` The Relationship and RelationshipSources derives automatically implement Component with the relevant configuration (namely, the hooks necessary to keep everything in sync). The most direct way to add relationships is to spawn entities with relationship components: ```rust let a = world.spawn_empty().id(); let b = world.spawn(Parent(a)).id(); assert_eq!(world.entity(a).get::<Children>().unwrap(), &[b]); ``` There are also convenience APIs for spawning more than one entity with the same relationship: ```rust world.spawn_empty().with_related::<Children>(|s| { s.spawn_empty(); s.spawn_empty(); }) ``` The existing `with_children` API is now a simpler wrapper over `with_related`. This makes this change largely non-breaking for existing spawn patterns. ```rust world.spawn_empty().with_children(|s| { s.spawn_empty(); s.spawn_empty(); }) ``` There are also other relationship APIs, such as `add_related` and `despawn_related`. ## Automatic recursive despawn via the new on_despawn hook `RelationshipSources` can opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior, which will despawn all related entities in the relationship hierarchy: ```rust #[derive(RelationshipSources)] #[relationship_sources(relationship = Parent, despawn_descendants)] pub struct Children(Vec<Entity>); ``` This means that `entity.despawn_recursive()` is no longer required. Instead, just use `entity.despawn()` and the relevant related entities will also be despawned. To despawn an entity _without_ despawning its parent/child descendants, you should remove the `Children` component first, which will also remove the related `Parent` components: ```rust entity .remove::<Children>() .despawn() ``` This builds on the on_despawn hook introduced in this PR, which is fired when an entity is despawned (before other hooks). ## Relationships are the source of truth `Relationship` is the _single_ source of truth component. `RelationshipSources` is merely a reflection of what all the `Relationship` components say. By embracing this, we are able to significantly improve the performance of the system as a whole. We can rely on component lifecycles to protect us against duplicates, rather than needing to scan at runtime to ensure entities don't already exist (which results in quadratic runtime). A single source of truth gives us constant-time inserts. This does mean that we cannot directly spawn populated `Children` components (or directly add or remove entities from those components). I personally think this is a worthwhile tradeoff, both because it makes the performance much better _and_ because it means theres exactly one way to do things (which is a philosophy we try to employ for Bevy APIs). As an aside: treating both sides of the relationship as "equivalent source of truth relations" does enable building simple and flexible many-to-many relationships. But this introduces an _inherent_ need to scan (or hash) to protect against duplicates. [`evergreen_relations`](https://github.com/EvergreenNest/evergreen_relations) has a very nice implementation of the "symmetrical many-to-many" approach. Unfortunately I think the performance issues inherent to that approach make it a poor choice for Bevy's default relationship system. ## Followup Work * Discuss renaming `Parent` to `ChildOf`. I refrained from doing that in this PR to keep the diff reasonable, but I'm personally biased toward this change (and using that naming pattern generally for relationships). * [Improved spawning ergonomics](bevyengine#16920) * Consider adding relationship observers/triggers for "relationship targets" whenever a source is added or removed. This would replace the current "hierarchy events" system, which is unused upstream but may have existing users downstream. I think triggers are the better fit for this than a buffered event queue, and would prefer not to add that back. * Fragmenting relations: My current idea hinges on the introduction of "value components" (aka: components whose type _and_ value determines their ComponentId, via something like Hashing / PartialEq). By labeling a Relationship component such as `ChildOf(Entity)` as a "value component", `ChildOf(e1)` and `ChildOf(e2)` would be considered "different components". This makes the transition between fragmenting and non-fragmenting a single flag, and everything else continues to work as expected. * Many-to-many support * Non-fragmenting: We can expand Relationship to be a list of entities instead of a single entity. I have largely already written the code for this. * Fragmenting: With the "value component" impl mentioned above, we get many-to-many support "for free", as it would allow inserting multiple copies of a Relationship component with different target entities. Fixes bevyengine#3742 (If this PR is merged, I think we should open more targeted followup issues for the work above, with a fresh tracking issue free of the large amount of less-directed historical context) Fixes bevyengine#17301 Fixes bevyengine#12235 Fixes bevyengine#15299 Fixes bevyengine#15308 ## Migration Guide * Replace `ChildBuilder` with `ChildSpawnerCommands`. * Replace calls to `.set_parent(parent_id)` with `.insert(Parent(parent_id))`. * Replace calls to `.replace_children()` with `.remove::<Children>()` followed by `.add_children()`. Note that you'll need to manually despawn any children that are not carried over. * Replace calls to `.despawn_recursive()` with `.despawn()`. * Replace calls to `.despawn_descendants()` with `.despawn_related::<Children>()`. * If you have any calls to `.despawn()` which depend on the children being preserved, you'll need to remove the `Children` component first. --------- Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
mrchantey
pushed a commit
to mrchantey/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2025
Fixes bevyengine#17412 ## Objective `Parent` uses the "has a X" naming convention. There is increasing sentiment that we should use the "is a X" naming convention for relationships (following bevyengine#17398). This leaves `Children` as-is because there is prevailing sentiment that `Children` is clearer than `ParentOf` in many cases (especially when treating it like a collection). This renames `Parent` to `ChildOf`. This is just the implementation PR. To discuss the path forward, do so in bevyengine#17412. ## Migration Guide - The `Parent` component has been renamed to `ChildOf`.
mrchantey
pushed a commit
to mrchantey/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 4, 2025
…17443) # Objective After bevyengine#17398, Bevy now has relations! We don't teach users how to make / work with these in the examples yet though, but we definitely should. ## Solution - Add a simple abstract example that goes over defining, spawning, traversing and removing a custom relations. - ~~Add `Relationship` and `RelationshipTarget` to the prelude: the trait methods are really helpful here.~~ - this causes subtle ambiguities with method names and weird compiler errors. Not doing it here! - Clean up related documentation that I referenced when writing this example. ## Testing `cargo run --example relationships` ## Notes to reviewers 1. Yes, I know that the cycle detection code could be more efficient. I decided to reduce the caching to avoid distracting from the broader point of "here's how you traverse relationships". 2. Instead of using an `App`, I've decide to use `World::run_system_once` + system functions defined inside of `main` to do something closer to literate programming. --------- Co-authored-by: Joona Aalto <jondolf.dev@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: MinerSebas <66798382+MinerSebas@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Kristoffer Søholm <k.soeholm@gmail.com>
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 6, 2025
Fixes #17535 Bevy's approach to handling "entity mapping" during spawning and cloning needs some work. The addition of [Relations](#17398) both [introduced a new "duplicate entities" bug when spawning scenes in the scene system](#17535) and made the weaknesses of the current mapping system exceedingly clear: 1. Entity mapping requires _a ton_ of boilerplate (implement or derive VisitEntities and VisitEntitesMut, then register / reflect MapEntities). Knowing the incantation is challenging and if you forget to do it in part or in whole, spawning subtly breaks. 2. Entity mapping a spawned component in scenes incurs unnecessary overhead: look up ReflectMapEntities, create a _brand new temporary instance_ of the component using FromReflect, map the entities in that instance, and then apply that on top of the actual component using reflection. We can do much better. Additionally, while our new [Entity cloning system](#16132) is already pretty great, it has some areas we can make better: * It doesn't expose semantic info about the clone (ex: ignore or "clone empty"), meaning we can't key off of that in places where it would be useful, such as scene spawning. Rather than duplicating this info across contexts, I think it makes more sense to add that info to the clone system, especially given that we'd like to use cloning code in some of our spawning scenarios. * EntityCloner is currently built in a way that prioritizes a single entity clone * EntityCloner's recursive cloning is built to be done "inside out" in a parallel context (queue commands that each have a clone of EntityCloner). By making EntityCloner the orchestrator of the clone we can remove internal arcs, improve the clarity of the code, make EntityCloner mutable again, and simplify the builder code. * EntityCloner does not currently take into account entity mapping. This is necessary to do true "bullet proof" cloning, would allow us to unify the per-component scene spawning and cloning UX, and ultimately would allow us to use EntityCloner in place of raw reflection for scenes like `Scene(World)` (which would give us a nice performance boost: fewer archetype moves, less reflection overhead). ## Solution ### Improved Entity Mapping First, components now have first-class "entity visiting and mapping" behavior: ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect)] #[reflect(Component)] struct Inventory { size: usize, #[entities] items: Vec<Entity>, } ``` Any field with the `#[entities]` annotation will be viewable and mappable when cloning and spawning scenes. Compare that to what was required before! ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect, VisitEntities, VisitEntitiesMut)] #[reflect(Component, MapEntities)] struct Inventory { #[visit_entities(ignore)] size: usize, items: Vec<Entity>, } ``` Additionally, for relationships `#[entities]` is implied, meaning this "just works" in scenes and cloning: ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect)] #[relationship(relationship_target = Children)] #[reflect(Component)] struct ChildOf(pub Entity); ``` Note that Component _does not_ implement `VisitEntities` directly. Instead, it has `Component::visit_entities` and `Component::visit_entities_mut` methods. This is for a few reasons: 1. We cannot implement `VisitEntities for C: Component` because that would conflict with our impl of VisitEntities for anything that implements `IntoIterator<Item=Entity>`. Preserving that impl is more important from a UX perspective. 2. We should not implement `Component: VisitEntities` VisitEntities in the Component derive, as that would increase the burden of manual Component trait implementors. 3. Making VisitEntitiesMut directly callable for components would make it easy to invalidate invariants defined by a component author. By putting it in the `Component` impl, we can make it harder to call naturally / unavailable to autocomplete using `fn visit_entities_mut(this: &mut Self, ...)`. `ReflectComponent::apply_or_insert` is now `ReflectComponent::apply_or_insert_mapped`. By moving mapping inside this impl, we remove the need to go through the reflection system to do entity mapping, meaning we no longer need to create a clone of the target component, map the entities in that component, and patch those values on top. This will make spawning mapped entities _much_ faster (The default `Component::visit_entities_mut` impl is an inlined empty function, so it will incur no overhead for unmapped entities). ### The Bug Fix To solve #17535, spawning code now skips entities with the new `ComponentCloneBehavior::Ignore` and `ComponentCloneBehavior::RelationshipTarget` variants (note RelationshipTarget is a temporary "workaround" variant that allows scenes to skip these components. This is a temporary workaround that can be removed as these cases should _really_ be using EntityCloner logic, which should be done in a followup PR. When that is done, `ComponentCloneBehavior::RelationshipTarget` can be merged into the normal `ComponentCloneBehavior::Custom`). ### Improved Cloning * `Option<ComponentCloneHandler>` has been replaced by `ComponentCloneBehavior`, which encodes additional intent and context (ex: `Default`, `Ignore`, `Custom`, `RelationshipTarget` (this last one is temporary)). * Global per-world entity cloning configuration has been removed. This felt overly complicated, increased our API surface, and felt too generic. Each clone context can have different requirements (ex: what a user wants in a specific system, what a scene spawner wants, etc). I'd prefer to see how far context-specific EntityCloners get us first. * EntityCloner's internals have been reworked to remove Arcs and make it mutable. * EntityCloner is now directly stored on EntityClonerBuilder, simplifying the code somewhat * EntityCloner's "bundle scratch" pattern has been moved into the new BundleScratch type, improving its usability and making it usable in other contexts (such as future cross-world cloning code). Currently this is still private, but with some higher level safe APIs it could be used externally for making dynamic bundles * EntityCloner's recursive cloning behavior has been "externalized". It is now responsible for orchestrating recursive clones, meaning it no longer needs to be sharable/clone-able across threads / read-only. * EntityCloner now does entity mapping during clones, like scenes do. This gives behavior parity and also makes it more generically useful. * `RelatonshipTarget::RECURSIVE_SPAWN` is now `RelationshipTarget::LINKED_SPAWN`, and this field is used when cloning relationship targets to determine if cloning should happen recursively. The new `LINKED_SPAWN` term was picked to make it more generically applicable across spawning and cloning scenarios. ## Next Steps * I think we should adapt EntityCloner to support cross world cloning. I think this PR helps set the stage for that by making the internals slightly more generalized. We could have a CrossWorldEntityCloner that reuses a lot of this infrastructure. * Once we support cross world cloning, we should use EntityCloner to spawn `Scene(World)` scenes. This would yield significant performance benefits (no archetype moves, less reflection overhead). --------- Co-authored-by: eugineerd <70062110+eugineerd@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
|
Could we offer users some advice on migrating the removed |
mrchantey
pushed a commit
to mrchantey/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 17, 2025
Fixes bevyengine#17535 Bevy's approach to handling "entity mapping" during spawning and cloning needs some work. The addition of [Relations](bevyengine#17398) both [introduced a new "duplicate entities" bug when spawning scenes in the scene system](bevyengine#17535) and made the weaknesses of the current mapping system exceedingly clear: 1. Entity mapping requires _a ton_ of boilerplate (implement or derive VisitEntities and VisitEntitesMut, then register / reflect MapEntities). Knowing the incantation is challenging and if you forget to do it in part or in whole, spawning subtly breaks. 2. Entity mapping a spawned component in scenes incurs unnecessary overhead: look up ReflectMapEntities, create a _brand new temporary instance_ of the component using FromReflect, map the entities in that instance, and then apply that on top of the actual component using reflection. We can do much better. Additionally, while our new [Entity cloning system](bevyengine#16132) is already pretty great, it has some areas we can make better: * It doesn't expose semantic info about the clone (ex: ignore or "clone empty"), meaning we can't key off of that in places where it would be useful, such as scene spawning. Rather than duplicating this info across contexts, I think it makes more sense to add that info to the clone system, especially given that we'd like to use cloning code in some of our spawning scenarios. * EntityCloner is currently built in a way that prioritizes a single entity clone * EntityCloner's recursive cloning is built to be done "inside out" in a parallel context (queue commands that each have a clone of EntityCloner). By making EntityCloner the orchestrator of the clone we can remove internal arcs, improve the clarity of the code, make EntityCloner mutable again, and simplify the builder code. * EntityCloner does not currently take into account entity mapping. This is necessary to do true "bullet proof" cloning, would allow us to unify the per-component scene spawning and cloning UX, and ultimately would allow us to use EntityCloner in place of raw reflection for scenes like `Scene(World)` (which would give us a nice performance boost: fewer archetype moves, less reflection overhead). ## Solution ### Improved Entity Mapping First, components now have first-class "entity visiting and mapping" behavior: ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect)] #[reflect(Component)] struct Inventory { size: usize, #[entities] items: Vec<Entity>, } ``` Any field with the `#[entities]` annotation will be viewable and mappable when cloning and spawning scenes. Compare that to what was required before! ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect, VisitEntities, VisitEntitiesMut)] #[reflect(Component, MapEntities)] struct Inventory { #[visit_entities(ignore)] size: usize, items: Vec<Entity>, } ``` Additionally, for relationships `#[entities]` is implied, meaning this "just works" in scenes and cloning: ```rust #[derive(Component, Reflect)] #[relationship(relationship_target = Children)] #[reflect(Component)] struct ChildOf(pub Entity); ``` Note that Component _does not_ implement `VisitEntities` directly. Instead, it has `Component::visit_entities` and `Component::visit_entities_mut` methods. This is for a few reasons: 1. We cannot implement `VisitEntities for C: Component` because that would conflict with our impl of VisitEntities for anything that implements `IntoIterator<Item=Entity>`. Preserving that impl is more important from a UX perspective. 2. We should not implement `Component: VisitEntities` VisitEntities in the Component derive, as that would increase the burden of manual Component trait implementors. 3. Making VisitEntitiesMut directly callable for components would make it easy to invalidate invariants defined by a component author. By putting it in the `Component` impl, we can make it harder to call naturally / unavailable to autocomplete using `fn visit_entities_mut(this: &mut Self, ...)`. `ReflectComponent::apply_or_insert` is now `ReflectComponent::apply_or_insert_mapped`. By moving mapping inside this impl, we remove the need to go through the reflection system to do entity mapping, meaning we no longer need to create a clone of the target component, map the entities in that component, and patch those values on top. This will make spawning mapped entities _much_ faster (The default `Component::visit_entities_mut` impl is an inlined empty function, so it will incur no overhead for unmapped entities). ### The Bug Fix To solve bevyengine#17535, spawning code now skips entities with the new `ComponentCloneBehavior::Ignore` and `ComponentCloneBehavior::RelationshipTarget` variants (note RelationshipTarget is a temporary "workaround" variant that allows scenes to skip these components. This is a temporary workaround that can be removed as these cases should _really_ be using EntityCloner logic, which should be done in a followup PR. When that is done, `ComponentCloneBehavior::RelationshipTarget` can be merged into the normal `ComponentCloneBehavior::Custom`). ### Improved Cloning * `Option<ComponentCloneHandler>` has been replaced by `ComponentCloneBehavior`, which encodes additional intent and context (ex: `Default`, `Ignore`, `Custom`, `RelationshipTarget` (this last one is temporary)). * Global per-world entity cloning configuration has been removed. This felt overly complicated, increased our API surface, and felt too generic. Each clone context can have different requirements (ex: what a user wants in a specific system, what a scene spawner wants, etc). I'd prefer to see how far context-specific EntityCloners get us first. * EntityCloner's internals have been reworked to remove Arcs and make it mutable. * EntityCloner is now directly stored on EntityClonerBuilder, simplifying the code somewhat * EntityCloner's "bundle scratch" pattern has been moved into the new BundleScratch type, improving its usability and making it usable in other contexts (such as future cross-world cloning code). Currently this is still private, but with some higher level safe APIs it could be used externally for making dynamic bundles * EntityCloner's recursive cloning behavior has been "externalized". It is now responsible for orchestrating recursive clones, meaning it no longer needs to be sharable/clone-able across threads / read-only. * EntityCloner now does entity mapping during clones, like scenes do. This gives behavior parity and also makes it more generically useful. * `RelatonshipTarget::RECURSIVE_SPAWN` is now `RelationshipTarget::LINKED_SPAWN`, and this field is used when cloning relationship targets to determine if cloning should happen recursively. The new `LINKED_SPAWN` term was picked to make it more generically applicable across spawning and cloning scenarios. ## Next Steps * I think we should adapt EntityCloner to support cross world cloning. I think this PR helps set the stage for that by making the internals slightly more generalized. We could have a CrossWorldEntityCloner that reuses a lot of this infrastructure. * Once we support cross world cloning, we should use EntityCloner to spawn `Scene(World)` scenes. This would yield significant performance benefits (no archetype moves, less reflection overhead). --------- Co-authored-by: eugineerd <70062110+eugineerd@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Alice Cecile <alice.i.cecile@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds support for one-to-many non-fragmenting relationships (with planned paths for fragmenting and non-fragmenting many-to-many relationships). "Non-fragmenting" means that entities with the same relationship type, but different relationship targets, are not forced into separate tables (which would cause "table fragmentation").
Functionally, this fills a similar niche as the current Parent/Children system. The biggest differences are:
REQUEST TO REVIEWERS: please don't leave top level comments and instead comment on specific lines of code. That way we can take advantage of threaded discussions. Also dont leave comments simply pointing out CI failures as I can read those just fine.
Built on top of what we have
Relationships are implemented on top of the Bevy ECS features we already have: components, immutability, and hooks. This makes them immediately compatible with all of our existing (and future) APIs for querying, spawning, removing, scenes, reflection, etc. The fewer specialized APIs we need to build, maintain, and teach, the better.
Why focus on one-to-many non-fragmenting first?
Flecs is heavily considering a switch to non-fragmenting relations after careful considerations of the performance tradeoffs.(Correction from @SanderMertens: Flecs is implementing non-fragmenting storage specialized for asset hierarchies, where asset hierarchies are many instances of small trees that have a well defined structure)The changes
This PR does the following:
bevy_ecs::hierarchy. The oldbevy_hierarchycrate has been removed.entity.despawn()is called. The built in Parent/Children hierarchies enable this behavior, andentity.despawn_recursive()has been removed.world.spawnnow applies commands after spawning. This ensures that relationship bookkeeping happens immediately and removes the need to manually flush. This is in line with the equivalent behaviors recently added to the other APIs (ex: insert).validate_parent_has_componenthook.Using Relationships
The
Relationshiptrait looks like this:A relationship is a component that:
RelationshipTargetcomponent, which is a simple wrapper over a collection of entities. Every "target entity" targeted by a "source entity" with aRelationshiphas aRelationshipTargetcomponent, which contains every "source entity" that targets it.For example, the
Parentcomponent (as it currently exists in Bevy) is theRelationshipcomponent and the entity containing the Parent is the "source entity". The entity inside theParent(Entity)component is the "target entity". And that target entity has aChildrencomponent (which implementsRelationshipTarget).In practice, the Parent/Children relationship looks like this:
The Relationship and RelationshipTarget derives automatically implement Component with the relevant configuration (namely, the hooks necessary to keep everything in sync).
The most direct way to add relationships is to spawn entities with relationship components:
There are also convenience APIs for spawning more than one entity with the same relationship:
The existing
with_childrenAPI is now a simpler wrapper overwith_related. This makes this change largely non-breaking for existing spawn patterns.There are also other relationship APIs, such as
add_relatedanddespawn_related.Automatic recursive despawn via the new on_despawn hook
RelationshipTargetcan opt-in to "despawn descendants" behavior, which will despawn all related entities in the relationship hierarchy:This means that
entity.despawn_recursive()is no longer required. Instead, just useentity.despawn()and the relevant related entities will also be despawned.To despawn an entity without despawning its parent/child descendants, you should remove the
Childrencomponent first, which will also remove the relatedParentcomponents:entity .remove::<Children>() .despawn()This builds on the on_despawn hook introduced in this PR, which is fired when an entity is despawned (before other hooks).
Relationships are the source of truth
Relationshipis the single source of truth component.RelationshipTargetis merely a reflection of what all theRelationshipcomponents say. By embracing this, we are able to significantly improve the performance of the system as a whole. We can rely on component lifecycles to protect us against duplicates, rather than needing to scan at runtime to ensure entities don't already exist (which results in quadratic runtime). A single source of truth gives us constant-time inserts. This does mean that we cannot directly spawn populatedChildrencomponents (or directly add or remove entities from those components). I personally think this is a worthwhile tradeoff, both because it makes the performance much better and because it means theres exactly one way to do things (which is a philosophy we try to employ for Bevy APIs).As an aside: treating both sides of the relationship as "equivalent source of truth relations" does enable building simple and flexible many-to-many relationships. But this introduces an inherent need to scan (or hash) to protect against duplicates.
evergreen_relationshas a very nice implementation of the "symmetrical many-to-many" approach. Unfortunately I think the performance issues inherent to that approach make it a poor choice for Bevy's default relationship system.Followup Work
ParenttoChildOf. I refrained from doing that in this PR to keep the diff reasonable, but I'm personally biased toward this change (and using that naming pattern generally for relationships).ChildOf(Entity)as a "value component",ChildOf(e1)andChildOf(e2)would be considered "different components". This makes the transition between fragmenting and non-fragmenting a single flag, and everything else continues to work as expected.Fixes #3742 (If this PR is merged, I think we should open more targeted followup issues for the work above, with a fresh tracking issue free of the large amount of less-directed historical context)
Fixes #17301
Fixes #12235
Fixes #15299
Fixes #15308
Migration Guide
ChildBuilderwithChildSpawnerCommands..set_parent(parent_id)with.insert(Parent(parent_id))..replace_children()with.remove::<Children>()followed by.add_children(). Note that you'll need to manually despawn any children that are not carried over..despawn_recursive()with.despawn()..despawn_descendants()with.despawn_related::<Children>()..despawn()which depend on the children being preserved, you'll need to remove theChildrencomponent first.