Skip to content

Remove entity placeholder from observers #19440

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

Conversation

ElliottjPierce
Copy link
Contributor

@ElliottjPierce ElliottjPierce commented May 30, 2025

Objective

Entity::PLACEHOLDER acts as a magic number that will probably never really exist, but it certainly could. And, Entity has a niche, so the only reason to use PLACEHOLDER is as an alternative to MaybeUninit that trades safety risks for logic risks.

As a result, bevy has generally advised against using PLACEHOLDER, but we still use if for a lot internally. This pr starts removing internal uses of it, starting from observers.

Solution

Change all trigger target related types from Entity to Option<Entity>

Testing

CI

Future Work

This turned a lot of code from

trigger.target()

to

trigger.target().unwrap()

The extra panic is no worse than before; it's just earlier than panicking after passing the placeholder to something else.

But this is kinda annoying.

I would like to add a TriggerMode or something to Event that would restrict what kinds of targets can be used for that event. Many events like Removed etc, are always triggered with a target. We can make those have a way to assume Some, etc. But I wanted to save that for a future pr.

@ElliottjPierce ElliottjPierce added A-ECS Entities, components, systems, and events C-Code-Quality A section of code that is hard to understand or change D-Straightforward Simple bug fixes and API improvements, docs, test and examples S-Needs-Review Needs reviewer attention (from anyone!) to move forward labels May 30, 2025
Comment on lines +772 to +785
Observers::invoke::<_>(
self.reborrow(),
event,
target,
components.clone(),
data,
&mut propagate,
caller,
);
let Some(mut target) = target else { return };

loop {
Observers::invoke::<_>(
self.reborrow(),
event,
target,
components.clone(),
data,
&mut propagate,
caller,
);
if !propagate {
break;
return;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Are all these changes here to avoid checking if target is some in the loop? It seems unfortunate to repeat this Observers::invoke call twice (these calls could skew).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes. It just saves checking for some. It is kinda annoying to have the second invoke, but I don't mind it. The first one is the root. All others are propagation based. They might diverge at some point anyway.

@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ impl<'w, E, B: Bundle> Trigger<'w, E, B> {
///
/// This is an important distinction: the entity reacting to an event is not always the same as
/// the entity triggered by the event.
pub fn target(&self) -> Entity {
pub fn target(&self) -> Option<Entity> {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The documentation still talks about Entity::PLACEHOLDER, this should probably be updated.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Good catch. Fixed!

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ use super::{unsafe_world_cell::UnsafeWorldCell, Mut, World, ON_INSERT, ON_REPLAC
///
/// This means that in order to add entities, for example, you will need to use commands instead of the world directly.
pub struct DeferredWorld<'w> {
// SAFETY: Implementors must not use this reference to make structural changes
// SAFETY: Implementers must not use this reference to make structural changes
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

TIL these are both valid ways of spelling it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My typos just picked it up lol; just fixing those red squiggly lines. I can revert if this is the spelling bevy would prefer.

I believe these spellings are regional. IDK which region bevy is sticking to (or if there's a way to manually pick one on my end).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we stick to american english largely, but I couldn't care less either way

@Trashtalk217 Trashtalk217 added S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it and removed S-Needs-Review Needs reviewer attention (from anyone!) to move forward labels Jun 8, 2025
@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile moved this to Observer overhaul in Alice's Work Planning Jun 9, 2025
@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added the M-Needs-Migration-Guide A breaking change to Bevy's public API that needs to be noted in a migration guide label Jun 9, 2025
Copy link
Member

@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You have no idea how happy this makes me :D Thanks!

@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 9, 2025
Merged via the queue into bevyengine:main with commit 064e5e4 Jun 9, 2025
34 checks passed
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2025
# Objective

Closes #19564.

The current `Event` trait looks like this:

```rust
pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static {
    type Traversal: Traversal<Self>;
    const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false;
    
    fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... }
    fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... }
}
```

The `Event` trait is used by both buffered events
(`EventReader`/`EventWriter`) and observer events. If they are observer
events, they can optionally be targeted at specific `Entity`s or
`ComponentId`s, and can even be propagated to other entities.

However, there has long been a desire to split the trait semantically
for a variety of reasons, see #14843, #14272, and #16031 for discussion.
Some reasons include:

- It's very uncommon to use a single event type as both a buffered event
and targeted observer event. They are used differently and tend to have
distinct semantics.
- A common footgun is using buffered events with observers or event
readers with observer events, as there is no type-level error that
prevents this kind of misuse.
- #19440 made `Trigger::target` return an `Option<Entity>`. This
*seriously* hurts ergonomics for the general case of entity observers,
as you need to `.unwrap()` each time. If we could statically determine
whether the event is expected to have an entity target, this would be
unnecessary.

There's really two main ways that we can categorize events: push vs.
pull (i.e. "observer event" vs. "buffered event") and global vs.
targeted:

|              | Push            | Pull                        |
| ------------ | --------------- | --------------------------- |
| **Global**   | Global observer | `EventReader`/`EventWriter` |
| **Targeted** | Entity observer | -                           |

There are many ways to approach this, each with their tradeoffs.
Ultimately, we kind of want to split events both ways:

- A type-level distinction between observer events and buffered events,
to prevent people from using the wrong kind of event in APIs
- A statically designated entity target for observer events to avoid
accidentally using untargeted events for targeted APIs

This PR achieves these goals by splitting event traits into `Event`,
`EntityEvent`, and `BufferedEvent`, with `Event` being the shared trait
implemented by all events.

## `Event`, `EntityEvent`, and `BufferedEvent`

`Event` is now a very simple trait shared by all events.

```rust
pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static {
    // Required for observer APIs
    fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... }
    fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... }
}
```

You can call `trigger` for *any* event, and use a global observer for
listening to the event.

```rust
#[derive(Event)]
struct Speak {
    message: String,
}

// ...

app.add_observer(|trigger: On<Speak>| {
    println!("{}", trigger.message);
});

// ...

commands.trigger(Speak {
    message: "Y'all like these reworked events?".to_string(),
});
```

To allow an event to be targeted at entities and even propagated
further, you can additionally implement the `EntityEvent` trait:

```rust
pub trait EntityEvent: Event {
    type Traversal: Traversal<Self>;
    const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false;
}
```

This lets you call `trigger_targets`, and to use targeted observer APIs
like `EntityCommands::observe`:

```rust
#[derive(Event, EntityEvent)]
#[entity_event(traversal = &'static ChildOf, auto_propagate)]
struct Damage {
    amount: f32,
}

// ...

let enemy = commands.spawn((Enemy, Health(100.0))).id();

// Spawn some armor as a child of the enemy entity.
// When the armor takes damage, it will bubble the event up to the enemy.
let armor_piece = commands
    .spawn((ArmorPiece, Health(25.0), ChildOf(enemy)))
    .observe(|trigger: On<Damage>, mut query: Query<&mut Health>| {
        // Note: `On::target` only exists because this is an `EntityEvent`.
        let mut health = query.get(trigger.target()).unwrap();
        health.0 -= trigger.amount();
    });

commands.trigger_targets(Damage { amount: 10.0 }, armor_piece);
```

> [!NOTE]
> You *can* still also trigger an `EntityEvent` without targets using
`trigger`. We probably *could* make this an either-or thing, but I'm not
sure that's actually desirable.

To allow an event to be used with the buffered API, you can implement
`BufferedEvent`:

```rust
pub trait BufferedEvent: Event {}
```

The event can then be used with `EventReader`/`EventWriter`:

```rust
#[derive(Event, BufferedEvent)]
struct Message(String);

fn write_hello(mut writer: EventWriter<Message>) {
    writer.write(Message("I hope these examples are alright".to_string()));
}

fn read_messages(mut reader: EventReader<Message>) {
    // Process all buffered events of type `Message`.
    for Message(message) in reader.read() {
        println!("{message}");
    }
}
```

In summary:

- Need a basic event you can trigger and observe? Derive `Event`!
- Need the event to be targeted at an entity? Derive `EntityEvent`!
- Need the event to be buffered and support the
`EventReader`/`EventWriter` API? Derive `BufferedEvent`!

## Alternatives

I'll now cover some of the alternative approaches I have considered and
briefly explored. I made this section collapsible since it ended up
being quite long :P

<details>

<summary>Expand this to see alternatives</summary>

### 1. Unified `Event` Trait

One option is not to have *three* separate traits (`Event`,
`EntityEvent`, `BufferedEvent`), and to instead just use associated
constants on `Event` to determine whether an event supports targeting
and buffering or not:

```rust
pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static {
    type Traversal: Traversal<Self>;
    const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false;
    const TARGETED: bool = false;
    const BUFFERED: bool = false;
    
    fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... }
    fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... }
}
```

Methods can then use bounds like `where E: Event<TARGETED = true>` or
`where E: Event<BUFFERED = true>` to limit APIs to specific kinds of
events.

This would keep everything under one `Event` trait, but I don't think
it's necessarily a good idea. It makes APIs harder to read, and docs
can't easily refer to specific types of events. You can also create
weird invariants: what if you specify `TARGETED = false`, but have
`Traversal` and/or `AUTO_PROPAGATE` enabled?

### 2. `Event` and `Trigger`

Another option is to only split the traits between buffered events and
observer events, since that is the main thing people have been asking
for, and they have the largest API difference.

If we did this, I think we would need to make the terms *clearly*
separate. We can't really use `Event` and `BufferedEvent` as the names,
since it would be strange that `BufferedEvent` doesn't implement
`Event`. Something like `ObserverEvent` and `BufferedEvent` could work,
but it'd be more verbose.

For this approach, I would instead keep `Event` for the current
`EventReader`/`EventWriter` API, and call the observer event a
`Trigger`, since the "trigger" terminology is already used in the
observer context within Bevy (both as a noun and a verb). This is also
what a long [bikeshed on
Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/749335865876021248/1298057661878898791)
seemed to land on at the end of last year.

```rust
// For `EventReader`/`EventWriter`
pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static {}

// For observers
pub trait Trigger: Send + Sync + 'static {
    type Traversal: Traversal<Self>;
    const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false;
    const TARGETED: bool = false;
    
    fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... }
    fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... }
}
```

The problem is that "event" is just a really good term for something
that "happens". Observers are rapidly becoming the more prominent API,
so it'd be weird to give them the `Trigger` name and leave the good
`Event` name for the less common API.

So, even though a split like this seems neat on the surface, I think it
ultimately wouldn't really work. We want to keep the `Event` name for
observer events, and there is no good alternative for the buffered
variant. (`Message` was suggested, but saying stuff like "sends a
collision message" is weird.)

### 3. `GlobalEvent` + `TargetedEvent`

What if instead of focusing on the buffered vs. observed split, we
*only* make a distinction between global and targeted events?

```rust
// A shared event trait to allow global observers to work
pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static {
    fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... }
    fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... }
}

// For buffered events and non-targeted observer events
pub trait GlobalEvent: Event {}

// For targeted observer events
pub trait TargetedEvent: Event {
    type Traversal: Traversal<Self>;
    const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false;
}
```

This is actually the first approach I implemented, and it has the neat
characteristic that you can only use non-targeted APIs like `trigger`
with a `GlobalEvent` and targeted APIs like `trigger_targets` with a
`TargetedEvent`. You have full control over whether the entity should or
should not have a target, as they are fully distinct at the type-level.

However, there's a few problems:

- There is no type-level indication of whether a `GlobalEvent` supports
buffered events or just non-targeted observer events
- An `Event` on its own does literally nothing, it's just a shared trait
required to make global observers accept both non-targeted and targeted
events
- If an event is both a `GlobalEvent` and `TargetedEvent`, global
observers again have ambiguity on whether an event has a target or not,
undermining some of the benefits
- The names are not ideal

### 4. `Event` and `EntityEvent`

We can fix some of the problems of Alternative 3 by accepting that
targeted events can also be used in non-targeted contexts, and simply
having the `Event` and `EntityEvent` traits:

```rust
// For buffered events and non-targeted observer events
pub trait Event: Send + Sync + 'static {
    fn register_component_id(world: &mut World) -> ComponentId { ... }
    fn component_id(world: &World) -> Option<ComponentId> { ... }
}

// For targeted observer events
pub trait EntityEvent: Event {
    type Traversal: Traversal<Self>;
    const AUTO_PROPAGATE: bool = false;
}
```

This is essentially identical to this PR, just without a dedicated
`BufferedEvent`. The remaining major "problem" is that there is still
zero type-level indication of whether an `Event` event *actually*
supports the buffered API. This leads us to the solution proposed in
this PR, using `Event`, `EntityEvent`, and `BufferedEvent`.

</details>

## Conclusion

The `Event` + `EntityEvent` + `BufferedEvent` split proposed in this PR
aims to solve all the common problems with Bevy's current event model
while keeping the "weirdness" factor minimal. It splits in terms of both
the push vs. pull *and* global vs. targeted aspects, while maintaining a
shared concept for an "event".

### Why I Like This

- The term "event" remains as a single concept for all the different
kinds of events in Bevy.
- Despite all event types being "events", they use fundamentally
different APIs. Instead of assuming that you can use an event type with
any pattern (when only one is typically supported), you explicitly opt
in to each one with dedicated traits.
- Using separate traits for each type of event helps with documentation
and clearer function signatures.
- I can safely make assumptions on expected usage.
- If I see that an event is an `EntityEvent`, I can assume that I can
use `observe` on it and get targeted events.
- If I see that an event is a `BufferedEvent`, I can assume that I can
use `EventReader` to read events.
- If I see both `EntityEvent` and `BufferedEvent`, I can assume that
both APIs are supported.

In summary: This allows for a unified concept for events, while limiting
the different ways to use them with opt-in traits. No more guess-work
involved when using APIs.

### Problems?

- Because `BufferedEvent` implements `Event` (for more consistent
semantics etc.), you can still use all buffered events for non-targeted
observers. I think this is fine/good. The important part is that if you
see that an event implements `BufferedEvent`, you know that the
`EventReader`/`EventWriter` API should be supported. Whether it *also*
supports other APIs is secondary.
- I currently only support `trigger_targets` for an `EntityEvent`.
However, you can technically target components too, without targeting
any entities. I consider that such a niche and advanced use case that
it's not a huge problem to only support it for `EntityEvent`s, but we
could also split `trigger_targets` into `trigger_entities` and
`trigger_components` if we wanted to (or implement components as
entities :P).
- You can still trigger an `EntityEvent` *without* targets. I consider
this correct, since `Event` implements the non-targeted behavior, and
it'd be weird if implementing another trait *removed* behavior. However,
it does mean that global observers for entity events can technically
return `Entity::PLACEHOLDER` again (since I got rid of the
`Option<Entity>` added in #19440 for ergonomics). I think that's enough
of an edge case that it's not a huge problem, but it is worth keeping in
mind.
- ~~Deriving both `EntityEvent` and `BufferedEvent` for the same type
currently duplicates the `Event` implementation, so you instead need to
manually implement one of them.~~ Changed to always requiring `Event` to
be derived.

## Related Work

There are plans to implement multi-event support for observers,
especially for UI contexts. [Cart's
example](#14649 (comment))
API looked like this:

```rust
// Truncated for brevity
trigger: Trigger<(
    OnAdd<Pressed>,
    OnRemove<Pressed>,
    OnAdd<InteractionDisabled>,
    OnRemove<InteractionDisabled>,
    OnInsert<Hovered>,
)>,
```

I believe this shouldn't be in conflict with this PR. If anything, this
PR might *help* achieve the multi-event pattern for entity observers
with fewer footguns: by statically enforcing that all of these events
are `EntityEvent`s in the context of `EntityCommands::observe`, we can
avoid misuse or weird cases where *some* events inside the trigger are
targeted while others are not.
@alice-i-cecile alice-i-cecile moved this from Observer overhaul to Observers - Completed in Alice's Work Planning Jun 15, 2025
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 C-Code-Quality A section of code that is hard to understand or change D-Straightforward Simple bug fixes and API improvements, docs, test and examples M-Needs-Migration-Guide A breaking change to Bevy's public API that needs to be noted in a migration guide S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it
Projects
Status: Observers - Completed
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants