[Merged by Bors] - bevy_scene: Replace root list with struct#6354
[Merged by Bors] - bevy_scene: Replace root list with struct#6354MrGVSV wants to merge 2 commits intobevyengine:mainfrom
Conversation
ThierryBerger
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like it's a complex implementation of the serialization/deserialization ?
I would have expected to see a SerializedScene struct we can refer to rather than rely on other docs/examples ?
In any way, it's probably helpful to have a custom deserializer, to iterate over assets or entities I guess, but right now it doesn't seem to be the point ?
Other than that (and the minor space nitpick), LGTM 👍 but I'm not comfortable enough with scenes to commit to an approve though, good luck :)
alice-i-cecile
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm on board. I think it's very unlikely that we never want to add other data to scenes, whether that's assets, meta-data, resources or something else entirely.
Co-authored-by: Thierry Berger <contact@thierryberger.com>
Yeah the documentation could be improved to bevy_scene overall. As for a
The reason for the custom deserializer is we need access to the |
jakobhellermann
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with the decision to change the scene schema, it is more understandable and easier to extend.
It's unfortunate that we can't just derive the serialization code but that is nothing new. I don't exactly understand how the #[seride(field_identifier)] stuff works but other that that the implementation looks good.
|
bors r+ |
# Objective
Scenes are currently represented as a list of entities. This is all we need currently, but we may want to add more data to this format in the future (metadata, asset lists, etc.).
It would be nice to update the format in preparation of possible future changes. Doing so now (i.e., before 0.9) could mean reduced[^1] breakage for things added in 0.10.
[^1]: Obviously, adding features runs the risk of breaking things regardless. But if all features added are for whatever reason optional or well-contained, then users should at least have an easier time updating.
## Solution
Made the scene root a struct rather than a list.
```rust
(
entities: [
// Entity data here...
]
)
```
---
## Changelog
* The scene format now puts the entity list in a newly added `entities` field, rather than having it be the root object
## Migration Guide
The scene file format now uses a struct as the root object rather than a list of entities. The list of entities is now found in the `entities` field of this struct.
```rust
// OLD
[
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
// NEW
(
entities: [
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
)
```
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
Scenes are currently represented as a list of entities. This is all we need currently, but we may want to add more data to this format in the future (metadata, asset lists, etc.).
It would be nice to update the format in preparation of possible future changes. Doing so now (i.e., before 0.9) could mean reduced[^1] breakage for things added in 0.10.
[^1]: Obviously, adding features runs the risk of breaking things regardless. But if all features added are for whatever reason optional or well-contained, then users should at least have an easier time updating.
## Solution
Made the scene root a struct rather than a list.
```rust
(
entities: [
// Entity data here...
]
)
```
---
## Changelog
* The scene format now puts the entity list in a newly added `entities` field, rather than having it be the root object
## Migration Guide
The scene file format now uses a struct as the root object rather than a list of entities. The list of entities is now found in the `entities` field of this struct.
```rust
// OLD
[
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
// NEW
(
entities: [
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
)
```
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
Scenes are currently represented as a list of entities. This is all we need currently, but we may want to add more data to this format in the future (metadata, asset lists, etc.).
It would be nice to update the format in preparation of possible future changes. Doing so now (i.e., before 0.9) could mean reduced[^1] breakage for things added in 0.10.
[^1]: Obviously, adding features runs the risk of breaking things regardless. But if all features added are for whatever reason optional or well-contained, then users should at least have an easier time updating.
## Solution
Made the scene root a struct rather than a list.
```rust
(
entities: [
// Entity data here...
]
)
```
---
## Changelog
* The scene format now puts the entity list in a newly added `entities` field, rather than having it be the root object
## Migration Guide
The scene file format now uses a struct as the root object rather than a list of entities. The list of entities is now found in the `entities` field of this struct.
```rust
// OLD
[
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
// NEW
(
entities: [
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
)
```
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
# Objective
Scenes are currently represented as a list of entities. This is all we need currently, but we may want to add more data to this format in the future (metadata, asset lists, etc.).
It would be nice to update the format in preparation of possible future changes. Doing so now (i.e., before 0.9) could mean reduced[^1] breakage for things added in 0.10.
[^1]: Obviously, adding features runs the risk of breaking things regardless. But if all features added are for whatever reason optional or well-contained, then users should at least have an easier time updating.
## Solution
Made the scene root a struct rather than a list.
```rust
(
entities: [
// Entity data here...
]
)
```
---
## Changelog
* The scene format now puts the entity list in a newly added `entities` field, rather than having it be the root object
## Migration Guide
The scene file format now uses a struct as the root object rather than a list of entities. The list of entities is now found in the `entities` field of this struct.
```rust
// OLD
[
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
// NEW
(
entities: [
(
entity: 0,
components: [
// Components...
]
),
]
)
```
Co-authored-by: Gino Valente <49806985+MrGVSV@users.noreply.github.com>
Objective
Scenes are currently represented as a list of entities. This is all we need currently, but we may want to add more data to this format in the future (metadata, asset lists, etc.).
It would be nice to update the format in preparation of possible future changes. Doing so now (i.e., before 0.9) could mean reduced1 breakage for things added in 0.10.
Solution
Made the scene root a struct rather than a list.
Changelog
entitiesfield, rather than having it be the root objectMigration Guide
The scene file format now uses a struct as the root object rather than a list of entities. The list of entities is now found in the
entitiesfield of this struct.Footnotes
Obviously, adding features runs the risk of breaking things regardless. But if all features added are for whatever reason optional or well-contained, then users should at least have an easier time updating. ↩