Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bevy_reflect_derive 0.10.0 > 0.10.1 has a breaking change for recursion #8965

Closed
Aultus-defora opened this issue Jun 26, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #9046
Closed

bevy_reflect_derive 0.10.0 > 0.10.1 has a breaking change for recursion #8965

Aultus-defora opened this issue Jun 26, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #9046
Labels
A-Reflection Runtime information about types C-Bug An unexpected or incorrect behavior

Comments

@Aultus-defora
Copy link

Aultus-defora commented Jun 26, 2023

Bevy version

0.10.1

If you cannot get Bevy to build or run on your machine, please include:

  • the Rust version 1.70.0 (ec8a8a0ca 2023-04-25)
  • MacOS Ventura 13.4

What you did

In 0.10.0 version struct and enum that could be recursive with #[cfg_attr(debug_assertions, derive(FromReflect, Reflect))] working,
but with 0.10.1 bevy_reflect_derive it does not even compile with a overflow evaluating the requirement RecurEnum: FromReflect

What went wrong

I expected the automatic update from 0.10.0 to 0.10.1 to not have breaking change
Wonder if the issue is that 'Reflect' was never intended to be used this way to begin with

Additional information

Other information that can be used to further reproduce or isolate the problem.
Here is the simplified code that used to compile in 0.10.0 but doesn't in 0.10.1

use bevy::{
    prelude::*,
    reflect::{FromReflect, Reflect},
};

#[cfg_attr(debug_assertions, derive(FromReflect, Reflect))]
enum RecurEnum {
    RecurStruct(RecurStruct),
    Const(f64)
}
#[cfg_attr(debug_assertions, derive(FromReflect, Reflect))]
pub struct RecurStruct {
    vector: Vec<RecurEnum>,
}

also old lock that allows this code to compile

Cargo.lock.txt

P.S. adding cargo tolm that makes the example work by forcing bevy_reflect_derive to be 0.10.0
Cargo.toml.txt

@Aultus-defora Aultus-defora added C-Bug An unexpected or incorrect behavior S-Needs-Triage This issue needs to be labelled labels Jun 26, 2023
@Aultus-defora Aultus-defora changed the title derive of FromReflect and Reflect cannot be used recursevly with 0.10.0 > 0.10.1 update bevy_reflect_derive 0.10.0 > 0.10.1 has a breaking change Jun 26, 2023
@Aultus-defora Aultus-defora changed the title bevy_reflect_derive 0.10.0 > 0.10.1 has a breaking change bevy_reflect_derive 0.10.0 > 0.10.1 has a breaking change for recursion Jun 26, 2023
@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added A-Reflection Runtime information about types and removed S-Needs-Triage This issue needs to be labelled labels Jun 27, 2023
@MrGVSV
Copy link
Member

MrGVSV commented Jun 27, 2023

Note: While the above example does seem to break between 0.10.0 and 0.10.1, this example is broken on both:

#[derive(Reflect, FromReflect)]
struct Foo {
  foo: Vec<Foo>
}

This indicates that the issue has possibly existed for longer. The fix would be to remove the generated self-referential where clause. However, this comes with difficulties due to generics and will require a thoughtful solution in order to capture all edge cases.

@MrGVSV
Copy link
Member

MrGVSV commented Jul 4, 2023

I may have an idea to fix this. I'll see if I can get it working!

Edit: Seems to be working. I'll run a few more tests then post the PR.

github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 28, 2024
# Objective

Fixes #8965.

#### Background

For convenience and to ensure everything is setup properly, we
automatically add certain bounds to the derived types. The current
implementation does this by taking the types from all active fields and
adding them to the where-clause of the generated impls. I believe this
method was chosen because it won't add bounds to types that are
otherwise ignored.

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo<T, U: SomeTrait, V> {
  t: T,
  u: U::Assoc,
  #[reflect(ignore)]
  v: [V; 2]
}

// Generates something like:
impl<T, U: SomeTrait, V> for Foo<T, U, V>
where
  // Active:
  T: Reflect,
  U::Assoc: Reflect,

  // Ignored:
  [V; 2]: Send + Sync + Any
{
  // ...
}
```

The self-referential type fails because it ends up using _itself_ as a
type bound due to being one of its own active fields.

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

// Foo where Vec<Foo>: Reflect -> Vec<T> where T: Reflect -> Foo where Vec<Foo>: Reflect -> ...
```

## Solution

We can't simply parse all field types for the name of our type. That
would be both complex and prone to errors and false-positives. And even
if it wasn't, what would we replace the bound with?

Instead, I opted to go for a solution that only adds the bounds to what
really needs it: the type parameters. While the bounds on concrete types
make errors a bit cleaner, they aren't strictly necessary. This means we
can change our generated where-clause to only add bounds to generic type
parameters.

Doing this, though, returns us back to the problem of over-bounding
parameters that don't need to be bounded. To solve this, I added a new
container attribute (based on
[this](dtolnay/syn#422 (comment))
comment and @nicopap's
[comment](#9046 (comment)))
that allows us to pass in a custom where clause to modify what bounds
are added to these type parameters.

This allows us to do stuff like:

```rust
trait Trait {
  type Assoc;
}

// We don't need `T` to be reflectable since we only care about `T::Assoc`.
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(where T::Assoc: FromReflect)]
struct Foo<T: Trait>(T::Assoc);

#[derive(TypePath)]
struct Bar;

impl Trait for Bar {
  type Assoc = usize;
}

#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Baz {
  a: Foo<Bar>,
}
```

> **Note**
> I also
[tried](dc139ea)
allowing `#[reflect(ignore)]` to be used on the type parameters
themselves, but that proved problematic since the derive macro does not
consume the attribute. This is why I went with the container attribute
approach.

### Alternatives

One alternative could possibly be to just not add reflection bounds
automatically (i.e. only add required bounds like `Send`, `Sync`, `Any`,
and `TypePath`).

The downside here is we add more friction to using reflection, which
already comes with its own set of considerations. This is a potentially
viable option, but we really need to consider whether or not the
ergonomics hit is worth it.

If we did decide to go the more manual route, we should at least
consider something like #5772 to make it easier for users to add the
right bounds (although, this could still become tricky with
`FromReflect` also being automatically derived).

### Open Questions

1. Should we go with this approach or the manual alternative?
2. ~~Should we add a `skip_params` attribute to avoid the `T: 'static`
trick?~~ ~~Decided to go with `custom_where()` as it's the simplest~~
Scratch that, went with a normal where clause
3. ~~`custom_where` bikeshedding?~~ No longer needed since we are using
a normal where clause

### TODO

- [x] Add compile-fail tests

---

## Changelog

- Fixed issue preventing recursive types from deriving `Reflect`
- Changed how where-clause bounds are generated by the `Reflect` derive
macro
- They are now only applied to the type parameters, not to all active
fields
- Added `#[reflect(where T: Trait, U::Assoc: Trait, ...)]` container
attribute

## Migration Guide

When deriving `Reflect`, generic type params that do not need the
automatic reflection bounds (such as `Reflect`) applied to them will
need to opt-out using a custom where clause like: `#[reflect(where T:
Trait, U::Assoc: Trait, ...)]`.

The attribute can define custom bounds only used by the reflection
impls. To simply opt-out all the type params, we can pass in an empty
where clause: `#[reflect(where)]`.

```rust
// BEFORE:
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo<T>(#[reflect(ignore)] T);

// AFTER:
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(where)]
struct Foo<T>(#[reflect(ignore)] T);
```

---------

Co-authored-by: Nicola Papale <[email protected]>
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jan 29, 2024
# Objective

Revert the changes to type parameter bounds introduced in #9046,
improves the `#[reflect(where)]` attribute (also from #9046), and adds
the ability to opt out of field bounds.

This is based on suggestions by @soqb and discussion on
[Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1201227833826103427).

## Solution

Reverts the changes to type parameter bounds when deriving `Reflect`,
introduced in #9046. This was originally done as a means of fixing a
recursion issue (#8965). However, as @soqb pointed out, we could achieve
the same result by simply making an opt-out attribute instead of messing
with the type parameter bounds.

This PR has four main changes:
1. Reverts the type parameter bounds from #9046
2. Includes `TypePath` as a default bound for active fields
3. Changes `#reflect(where)]` to be strictly additive
4. Adds `#reflect(no_field_bounds)]` to opt out of field bounds

Change 1 means that, like before, type parameters only receive at most
the `TypePath` bound (if `#[reflect(type_path = false)]` is not present)
and active fields receive the `Reflect` or `FromReflect` bound. And with
Change 2, they will also receive `TypePath` (since it's indirectly
required by `Typed` to construct `NamedField` and `UnnamedField`
instances).

Change 3 was made to make room for Change 4. By splitting out the
responsibility of `#reflect(where)]`, we can use it with or without
`#reflect(no_field_bounds)]` for various use cases.

For example, if we hadn't done this, the following would have failed:

```rust
// Since we're not using `#reflect(no_field_bounds)]`, 
// `T::Assoc` is automatically given the required bounds
// of `FromReflect + TypePath`
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(where T::Assoc: OtherTrait)]
struct Foo<T: MyTrait> {
  value: T::Assoc,
}
```

This provides more flexibility to the user while still letting them add
or remove most trait bounds.

And to solve the original recursion issue, we can do:

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(no_field_bounds)] // <-- Added
struct Foo {
  foo: Vec<Foo>
}
```

#### Bounds

All in all, we now have four sets of trait bounds:
- `Self` gets the bounds `Any + Send + Sync`
- Type parameters get the bound `TypePath`. This can be opted out of
with `#[reflect(type_path = false)]`
- Active fields get the bounds `TypePath` and `FromReflect`/`Reflect`
bounds. This can be opted out of with `#reflect(no_field_bounds)]`
- Custom bounds can be added with `#[reflect(where)]`

---

## Changelog

- Revert some changes #9046
- `#reflect(where)]` is now strictly additive
- Added `#reflect(no_field_bounds)]` attribute to opt out of automatic
field trait bounds when deriving `Reflect`
- Made the `TypePath` requirement on fields when deriving `Reflect` more
explicit

## Migration Guide

> [!important]
> This PR shouldn't be a breaking change relative to the current version
of Bevy (v0.12). And since it removes the breaking parts of #9046, that
PR also won't need a migration guide.
@MrGVSV
Copy link
Member

MrGVSV commented Jan 29, 2024

This should be fixed now with #9046 and #11597 merged.

For recursive types, you need to opt-out of field bounds using #[reflect(no_field_bounds)]:

#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(no_field_bounds)]
struct Foo {
  foo: Vec<Foo>,
}

For generic recursive types, you may also need to use #[reflect(where T: FromReflect)] to re-bound your fields:

#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(no_field_bounds)]
#[reflect(where T: FromReflect)]
struct Foo<T> {
  foo: Vec<Foo<T>>,
  t: T,
}

tjamaan pushed a commit to tjamaan/bevy that referenced this issue Feb 6, 2024
# Objective

Fixes bevyengine#8965.

#### Background

For convenience and to ensure everything is setup properly, we
automatically add certain bounds to the derived types. The current
implementation does this by taking the types from all active fields and
adding them to the where-clause of the generated impls. I believe this
method was chosen because it won't add bounds to types that are
otherwise ignored.

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo<T, U: SomeTrait, V> {
  t: T,
  u: U::Assoc,
  #[reflect(ignore)]
  v: [V; 2]
}

// Generates something like:
impl<T, U: SomeTrait, V> for Foo<T, U, V>
where
  // Active:
  T: Reflect,
  U::Assoc: Reflect,

  // Ignored:
  [V; 2]: Send + Sync + Any
{
  // ...
}
```

The self-referential type fails because it ends up using _itself_ as a
type bound due to being one of its own active fields.

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

// Foo where Vec<Foo>: Reflect -> Vec<T> where T: Reflect -> Foo where Vec<Foo>: Reflect -> ...
```

## Solution

We can't simply parse all field types for the name of our type. That
would be both complex and prone to errors and false-positives. And even
if it wasn't, what would we replace the bound with?

Instead, I opted to go for a solution that only adds the bounds to what
really needs it: the type parameters. While the bounds on concrete types
make errors a bit cleaner, they aren't strictly necessary. This means we
can change our generated where-clause to only add bounds to generic type
parameters.

Doing this, though, returns us back to the problem of over-bounding
parameters that don't need to be bounded. To solve this, I added a new
container attribute (based on
[this](dtolnay/syn#422 (comment))
comment and @nicopap's
[comment](bevyengine#9046 (comment)))
that allows us to pass in a custom where clause to modify what bounds
are added to these type parameters.

This allows us to do stuff like:

```rust
trait Trait {
  type Assoc;
}

// We don't need `T` to be reflectable since we only care about `T::Assoc`.
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(where T::Assoc: FromReflect)]
struct Foo<T: Trait>(T::Assoc);

#[derive(TypePath)]
struct Bar;

impl Trait for Bar {
  type Assoc = usize;
}

#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Baz {
  a: Foo<Bar>,
}
```

> **Note**
> I also
[tried](bevyengine@dc139ea)
allowing `#[reflect(ignore)]` to be used on the type parameters
themselves, but that proved problematic since the derive macro does not
consume the attribute. This is why I went with the container attribute
approach.

### Alternatives

One alternative could possibly be to just not add reflection bounds
automatically (i.e. only add required bounds like `Send`, `Sync`, `Any`,
and `TypePath`).

The downside here is we add more friction to using reflection, which
already comes with its own set of considerations. This is a potentially
viable option, but we really need to consider whether or not the
ergonomics hit is worth it.

If we did decide to go the more manual route, we should at least
consider something like bevyengine#5772 to make it easier for users to add the
right bounds (although, this could still become tricky with
`FromReflect` also being automatically derived).

### Open Questions

1. Should we go with this approach or the manual alternative?
2. ~~Should we add a `skip_params` attribute to avoid the `T: 'static`
trick?~~ ~~Decided to go with `custom_where()` as it's the simplest~~
Scratch that, went with a normal where clause
3. ~~`custom_where` bikeshedding?~~ No longer needed since we are using
a normal where clause

### TODO

- [x] Add compile-fail tests

---

## Changelog

- Fixed issue preventing recursive types from deriving `Reflect`
- Changed how where-clause bounds are generated by the `Reflect` derive
macro
- They are now only applied to the type parameters, not to all active
fields
- Added `#[reflect(where T: Trait, U::Assoc: Trait, ...)]` container
attribute

## Migration Guide

When deriving `Reflect`, generic type params that do not need the
automatic reflection bounds (such as `Reflect`) applied to them will
need to opt-out using a custom where clause like: `#[reflect(where T:
Trait, U::Assoc: Trait, ...)]`.

The attribute can define custom bounds only used by the reflection
impls. To simply opt-out all the type params, we can pass in an empty
where clause: `#[reflect(where)]`.

```rust
// BEFORE:
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct Foo<T>(#[reflect(ignore)] T);

// AFTER:
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(where)]
struct Foo<T>(#[reflect(ignore)] T);
```

---------

Co-authored-by: Nicola Papale <[email protected]>
tjamaan pushed a commit to tjamaan/bevy that referenced this issue Feb 6, 2024
# Objective

Revert the changes to type parameter bounds introduced in bevyengine#9046,
improves the `#[reflect(where)]` attribute (also from bevyengine#9046), and adds
the ability to opt out of field bounds.

This is based on suggestions by @soqb and discussion on
[Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1201227833826103427).

## Solution

Reverts the changes to type parameter bounds when deriving `Reflect`,
introduced in bevyengine#9046. This was originally done as a means of fixing a
recursion issue (bevyengine#8965). However, as @soqb pointed out, we could achieve
the same result by simply making an opt-out attribute instead of messing
with the type parameter bounds.

This PR has four main changes:
1. Reverts the type parameter bounds from bevyengine#9046
2. Includes `TypePath` as a default bound for active fields
3. Changes `#reflect(where)]` to be strictly additive
4. Adds `#reflect(no_field_bounds)]` to opt out of field bounds

Change 1 means that, like before, type parameters only receive at most
the `TypePath` bound (if `#[reflect(type_path = false)]` is not present)
and active fields receive the `Reflect` or `FromReflect` bound. And with
Change 2, they will also receive `TypePath` (since it's indirectly
required by `Typed` to construct `NamedField` and `UnnamedField`
instances).

Change 3 was made to make room for Change 4. By splitting out the
responsibility of `#reflect(where)]`, we can use it with or without
`#reflect(no_field_bounds)]` for various use cases.

For example, if we hadn't done this, the following would have failed:

```rust
// Since we're not using `#reflect(no_field_bounds)]`, 
// `T::Assoc` is automatically given the required bounds
// of `FromReflect + TypePath`
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(where T::Assoc: OtherTrait)]
struct Foo<T: MyTrait> {
  value: T::Assoc,
}
```

This provides more flexibility to the user while still letting them add
or remove most trait bounds.

And to solve the original recursion issue, we can do:

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
#[reflect(no_field_bounds)] // <-- Added
struct Foo {
  foo: Vec<Foo>
}
```

#### Bounds

All in all, we now have four sets of trait bounds:
- `Self` gets the bounds `Any + Send + Sync`
- Type parameters get the bound `TypePath`. This can be opted out of
with `#[reflect(type_path = false)]`
- Active fields get the bounds `TypePath` and `FromReflect`/`Reflect`
bounds. This can be opted out of with `#reflect(no_field_bounds)]`
- Custom bounds can be added with `#[reflect(where)]`

---

## Changelog

- Revert some changes bevyengine#9046
- `#reflect(where)]` is now strictly additive
- Added `#reflect(no_field_bounds)]` attribute to opt out of automatic
field trait bounds when deriving `Reflect`
- Made the `TypePath` requirement on fields when deriving `Reflect` more
explicit

## Migration Guide

> [!important]
> This PR shouldn't be a breaking change relative to the current version
of Bevy (v0.12). And since it removes the breaking parts of bevyengine#9046, that
PR also won't need a migration guide.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-Reflection Runtime information about types C-Bug An unexpected or incorrect behavior
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants