[Merged by Bors] - Revise docs for system set marker traits #7882
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
joseph-gio
added
C-Docs
alice-i-cecile
approved these changes
Mar 3, 2023
alice-i-cecile
added
the
S-Ready-For-Final-Review
|
I'm comfortable merging as trivial, but if others have opinions on doc wording go ahead. |
jabuwu
reviewed
Mar 3, 2023
jabuwu
reviewed
Mar 3, 2023
james7132
approved these changes
Mar 3, 2023
Co-authored-by: James Liu <[email protected]>
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 3, 2023
# Objective #7863 introduced a potential footgun. When trying to incorrectly add a user-defined type using `in_base_set`, the compiler will suggest that the user implement `BaseSystemSet` for their type. This is a reasonable-sounding suggestion, however this is not the correct way to make a base set, and will lead to a confusing panic message when a marker trait is implemented for the wrong type. ## Solution Rewrite the documentation for these traits, making it more clear that `BaseSystemSet` is a marker for types that are already base sets, and not a way to define a base set.
bors
bot
changed the title
ProfLander
pushed a commit
to shfty-rust/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 19, 2023
# Objective bevyengine#7863 introduced a potential footgun. When trying to incorrectly add a user-defined type using `in_base_set`, the compiler will suggest that the user implement `BaseSystemSet` for their type. This is a reasonable-sounding suggestion, however this is not the correct way to make a base set, and will lead to a confusing panic message when a marker trait is implemented for the wrong type. ## Solution Rewrite the documentation for these traits, making it more clear that `BaseSystemSet` is a marker for types that are already base sets, and not a way to define a base set.
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.
Objective
#7863 introduced a potential footgun. When trying to incorrectly add a user-defined type using
in_base_set, the compiler will suggest that the user implementBaseSystemSetfor their type. This is a reasonable-sounding suggestion, however this is not the correct way to make a base set, and will lead to a confusing panic message when a marker trait is implemented for the wrong type.Solution
Rewrite the documentation for these traits, making it more clear that
BaseSystemSetis a marker for types that are already base sets, and not a way to define a base set.