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

[Merged by Bors] - Resolve (most) internal system ambiguities #1606

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

cart
Copy link
Member

@cart cart commented Mar 10, 2021

  • Adds labels and orderings to systems that need them (uses the new many-to-many labels for InputSystem)
  • Removes the Event, PreEvent, Scene, and Ui stages in favor of First, PreUpdate, and PostUpdate (there is more collapsing potential, such as the Asset stages and maybe removing First, but those have more nuance so they should be handled separately)
  • Ambiguity detection now prints component conflicts
  • Removed broken change filters from flex calculation (which implicitly relied on the z-update system always modifying translation.z). This will require more work to make it behave as expected so i just removed it (and it was already doing this work every frame).

@cart cart added the A-ECS Entities, components, systems, and events label Mar 10, 2021
@cart
Copy link
Member Author

cart commented Mar 10, 2021

The remaining internal plugin ambiguities are now, without exception, "just noise". Resolving them does not fix any bugs. Additionally, resolving them increases implementation complexity (by sprinkling ambiguity sets everywhere), so I am personally inclined to not resolve them.

@alice-i-cecile
Copy link
Member

The remaining internal plugin ambiguities are now, without exception, "just noise".

Out of curiosity, do you have the output of this available? I'd like to see what remains, to improve my mental model of this problem space.

Copy link
Contributor

@Ratysz Ratysz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Additionally, resolving them increases implementation complexity (by sprinkling ambiguity sets everywhere), so I am personally inclined to not resolve them.

Ambiguity sets are not for "resolving" anything, they are strictly a measure to reduce the noise of the ambiguity checker.

I know you don't like them - I, frankly, don't like them right now either - but if we want to keep the checker and have it be not uselessly noisy, we have to reduce the noise somehow. Ambiguity sets are just the simplest tool for it that we can have right now: it's crude and it adds a layer of complexity (however uncomplicated it may be), but it does the job; it also doesn't have to be permanent.

I'm hoping for one of these possibilities:

  • At some point during further API improvements (Simple improvements to ambiguity reporting clarity #1484, System organization overhaul and the road to a stageless schedule #1375) we stumble upon a way of doing this that isn't as unpleasant. I'm banking on mass label assignment: being able to say "I've verified everything in this plugin, don't bother checking it for internal ambiguities" with one or two lines seems sufficiently nice.
  • After initial adoption period of 0.5 has passed we discover that the fears that lead to ambiguity checker's creation were completely unfounded, and the average user has no trouble grokking implications of "execution order is not defined unless you define it". Which means we can throw away this incarnation of the checker completely and stop worrying about it.

Out of curiosity, do you have the output of this available? I'd like to see what remains, to improve my mental model of this problem space.

Running breakout.

(You should be able to generate that yourself: checkout this branch, .insert_resource(bevy::ecs::schedule::ReportExecutionOrderAmbiguities) on whichever example's app builder, run.)

It's... quite a few. We do have to reduce the noise.

crates/bevy_core/src/lib.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
crates/bevy_ecs/src/schedule/stage.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
crates/bevy_ecs/src/schedule/stage.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
crates/bevy_scene/src/lib.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
@alice-i-cecile
Copy link
Member

I know you don't like them - I, frankly, don't like them right now either - but if we want to keep the checker and have it be not uselessly noisy, we have to reduce the noise somehow

I agree with every part of this comment :p Those warnings from breakout are very noisy, and can't be fixed by the end user without forking Bevy.

After initial adoption period of 0.5 has passed we discover that the fears that lead to ambiguity checker's creation were completely unfounded, and the average user has no trouble grokking implications of "execution order is not defined unless you define it". Which means we can throw away this incarnation of the checker completely and stop worrying about it.

Once #68 is solved this seems much more likely thankfully. Frame delays aren't great, but don't completely break games in the way that missing changes does.

@Ratysz
Copy link
Contributor

Ratysz commented Mar 10, 2021

Frame delays aren't great, but don't completely break games in the way that missing changes does.

I don't know. Sure, not breaking is great, but a hidden loss of resolution speed is, well, a pretty insidious issue. It's one thing when users' own systems are doing it (user error, define explicit order), but engine's systems telling you that it's fine when it's not always fine is another.

@cart
Copy link
Member Author

cart commented Mar 10, 2021

Most of the remaining ambiguous systems are a class of "thing" where a mutation occurs across systems, but the order doesn't matter. This could be any set-like operation (HashMap, Assets, RenderPipelines, etc), a work queue where the queue order doesn't matter (SharedBuffers), or any other "commutative" operation.

Manually ordering these types of systems is a non-starter for me. Users (and internal Bevy developers) using Assets<Texture> shouldn't need to care about the other things that interact with Assets<Texture>.

Likewise, ambiguity sets as a permanent solution are also a non-starter for me. Users shouldn't need to add every Assets<Texture> system to an ambiguity set (and doing this internally long term would make me extremely sad).

As a short term solution, I'd be fine with adding ambiguity sets here. But I honestly don't doubt that the ambiguity checker has value as a debugging tool. I've found it useful while resolving ambiguities and users have already self-reported its value. If the assertion is that "the ambiguity checker cannot have internal bevy noise", and the ambiguity checker is a useful debugging tool, then we are implicitly committing to continue resolving all ambiguities (which I do have a problem with).

@alice-i-cecile
Copy link
Member

If the assertion is that "the ambiguity checker cannot have internal bevy noise", and the ambiguity checker is a useful debugging tool, then we are implicitly committing to continue resolving all ambiguities (which I do have a problem with).

Can we split what the ambiguity reporter reports up by origin? E.g. all of the Bevy internal conflicts in one pile, and all of the user conflicts in another, and all of the user-Bevy conflicts in a third?

These could either be shown in separate regions of the report, or completely silenced en-masse by modifying the value of the "enable ambiguity checker resource".

@Ratysz
Copy link
Contributor

Ratysz commented Mar 10, 2021

Was about to voice that idea. It seems like it'll let us both keep the checker and eat it too not have to commit to annotate everything internal, ever. Gonna have to think about if it's better and/or easier to implement than ergonomically assigning ambiguity sets to internal systems.

Re: this PR: I think it can be merged as-is. The only solution to silencing internal ambiguities we can apply right now seems rather painful; might be best to revisit it separately, with more tools - I'm already working on most of those I've mentioned.

@cart
Copy link
Member Author

cart commented Mar 10, 2021

Can we split what the ambiguity reporter reports up by origin? E.g. all of the Bevy internal conflicts in one pile, and all of the user conflicts in another, and all of the user-Bevy conflicts in a third?

Haha one of the hazards of a modular design is that theres no real distinction between internal systems and third-party systems. I guess we could just add a list of crates and do a str::starts_with on the system name?

Anyway, yeah I'm inclined to merge this as-is and continue the "ambiguity noise" discussion elsewhere. I'll resolve the remaining comments.

@cart
Copy link
Member Author

cart commented Mar 10, 2021

bors r+

bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 10, 2021
* Adds labels and orderings to systems that need them (uses the new many-to-many labels for InputSystem)
* Removes the Event, PreEvent, Scene, and Ui stages in favor of First, PreUpdate, and PostUpdate (there is more collapsing potential, such as the Asset stages and _maybe_ removing First, but those have more nuance so they should be handled separately)
* Ambiguity detection now prints component conflicts
* Removed broken change filters from flex calculation (which implicitly relied on the z-update system always modifying translation.z). This will require more work to make it behave as expected so i just removed it (and it was already doing this work every frame).
@bors bors bot changed the title Resolve (most) internal system ambiguities [Merged by Bors] - Resolve (most) internal system ambiguities Mar 10, 2021
@bors bors bot closed this Mar 10, 2021
bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2021
# Objective

Previously, the gilrs system had no explicit relationship to the input
systems. This could potentially cause it to be scheduled after the
input systems, leading to a one-frame lag in gamepad inputs.

This was a regression introduced in #1606 which removed the `PreEvent` stage

## Solution

This adds an explicit `before` relationship to the gilrs plugin,
ensuring that raw gamepad events will be processed on the same frame
that they are generated.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-ECS Entities, components, systems, and events
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants