0.11 Section: Schedule First APIs and Nested System Tuples

content/news/2023-07-07-bevy-0.11/index.md

@@ -17,11 +17,146 @@ Since our last release a few months ago we've added a _ton_ of new features, bug
 
 * **Feature**: description
 
-## Feature
-
-<div class="release-feature-authors">authors: @todo</div>
-
-Description
+## Schedule-First ECS APIs
+
+<div class="release-feature-authors">authors: @cart</div>
+
+In **Bevy 0.10** we introduced [ECS Schedule V3](/news/bevy-0-10/#ecs-schedule-v3), which _vastly_ improved the capabilities of Bevy ECS system scheduling: scheduler API ergonomics, system chaining, the ability to run exclusive systems and apply deferred system operations at any point in a schedule, a single unified schedule, configurable System Sets, run conditions, and a better State system.
+
+However it pretty quickly became clear that the new system still had some areas to improve:
+
+* **Base Sets were hard to understand and error prone**: What _is_ a Base Set? When do I use them? Why do they exist? Why is my ordering implicitly invalid due to incompatible Base Set ordering? Why do some schedules have a default Base Set while others don't? [Base Sets were confusing!](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/8079#base-set-confusion)
+* **There were too many ways to schedule a System**: We've accumulated too many scheduling APIs. As of Bevy **0.10**, we had [_SIX_ different ways to add a system to the "startup" schedule](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/8079#unify-system-apis). Thats too many ways!
+* **Too much implicit configuration**: There were both default Schedules and default Base Sets. In some cases systems had default schedules or default base sets, but in other cases they didn't! [A system's schedule and configuration should be explicit and clear](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/8079#schedule-should-be-clear).
+* **Adding Systems to Schedules wasn't ergonomic**: Things like `add_system(foo.in_schedule(CoreSchedule::Startup))` were not fun to type or read. We created special-case helpers, such as `add_startup_system(foo)`, but [this required more internal code, user-defined schedules didn't benefit from the special casing, and it completely hid the `CoreSchedule::Startup` symbol!](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/8079#ergonomic-system-adding).
+
+### Unraveling the Complexity
+
+If your eyes started to glaze over as you tried to wrap your head around this, or phrases like "implicitly added to the `Update` Base Set" filled you with dread ... don't worry. After [a lot of careful thought](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/8079) we've unraveled the complexity and built something clear and simple.
+
+In **Bevy 0.11** the "scheduling mental model" is _much_ simpler thanks to **Schedule-First ECS APIs**:
+
+```rust
+app
+    .add_systems(Startup, (a, b))
+    .add_systems(Update, (c, d, e))
+    .add_systems(FixedUpdate, (f, g))
+    .add_systems(PostUpdate, h)
+    .add_systems(OnEnter(AppState::Menu), enter_menu)
+    .add_systems(OnExit(AppState::Menu), exit_menu)
+```
+
+* **There is _exactly_ one way to schedule systems**
+    * Call `add_systems`, state the schedule name, and specify one or more systems
+* **Base Sets have been entirely removed in favor of Schedules, which have friendly / short names**
+    * Ex: The `CoreSet::Update` Base Set has become `Update`
+* **There is no implicit or implied configuration**
+    * Default Schedules and default Base Sets don't exist
+* **The syntax is easy on the eyes and ergonomic**
+    * Schedules are first so they "line up" when formatted
+
+<details>
+    <summary>To compare, expand this to see what it used to be!</summary>
+
+```rust
+app
+    // Startup system variant 1.
+    // Has an implied default StartupSet::Startup base set
+    // Has an implied CoreSchedule::Startup schedule
+    .add_startup_systems((a, b))
+    // Startup system variant 2.
+    // Has an implied default StartupSet::Startup base set
+    // Has an implied CoreSchedule::Startup schedule
+    .add_systems((a, b).on_startup())
+    // Startup system variant 3.
+    // Has an implied default StartupSet::Startup base set
+    .add_systems((a, b).in_schedule(CoreSchedule::Startup))
+    // Update system variant 1.
+    // `CoreSet::Update` base set and `CoreSchedule::Main` are implied
+    .add_system(c)
+    // Update system variant 2 (note the add_system vs add_systems difference)
+    // `CoreSet::Update` base set and `CoreSchedule::Main` are implied
+    .add_systems((d, e))
+    // No implied default base set because CoreSchedule::FixedUpdate doesn't have one
+    .add_systems((f, g).in_schedule(CoreSchedule::FixedUpdate))
+    // `CoreSchedule::Main` is implied, in_base_set overrides the default CoreSet::Update set
+    .add_system(h.in_base_set(CoreSet::PostUpdate))
+    // This has no implied default base set
+    .add_systems(enter_menu.in_schedule(OnEnter(AppState::Menu)))
+    // This has no implied default base set
+    .add_systems(exit_menu.in_schedule(OnExit(AppState::Menu)))
+```
+
+</details>
+
+Note that normal "system sets" still exist! You can still use sets to organize and order your systems:
+
+```rust
+app.add_systems(Update, (
+    (walk, jump).in_set(Movement),
+    collide.after(Movement),
+))
+```
+
+The `configure_set` API has also been adjusted for parity:
+
+```rust
+// before
+app.configure_set(Foo.after(Bar).in_schedule(PostUpdate))
+// after
+app.configure_set(PostUpdate, Foo.after(Bar))
+```
+
+## Nested System Tuples and Chaining
+
+<div class="release-feature-authors">authors: @cart</div>
+
+It is now possible to infinitely nest tuples of systems in a `.add_systems` call!
+
+```rust
+app.add_systems(Update, (
+    (a, (b, c, d, e), f),
+    (g, h),
+    i
+))
+```
+
+At first glance, this might not seem very useful. But in combination with per-tuple configuration, it allows you to easily and cleanly express schedules:
+
+```rust
+app.add_systems(Update, (
+    (attack, defend).in_set(Combat).before(check_health)
+    check_health,
+    (handle_death, respawn).after(check_health)
+))
+```
+
+`.chain()` has also been adapted to support arbitrary nesting! The ordering in the example above could be rephrased like this:
+
+```rust
+app.add_systems(Update,
+    (
+        (attack, defend).in_set(Combat)
+        check_health,
+        (handle_death, respawn)
+    ).chain()
+)
+```
+
+This will run `attack` and `defend` first (in parallel), then `check_health`, then `handle_death` and `respawn` (in parallel).
+
+This allows for powerful and expressive "graph-like" ordering expressions:
+
+```rust
+app.add_systems(Update,
+    (
+        (a, b, c).chain(),
+        (d, e),
+    ).chain()
+)
+```
+
+This will run a, then b, then c, then run d _and_ e in parallel.
 
 ## <a name="what-s-next"></a>What's Next?