[Merged by Bors] - Remove unnecessary struct in Material AsBindGroup example #6701
Conversation
This file contains 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
IceSentry
added
A-Rendering
|
I can't tell if this has been fixed, but I know you used to not be able to have just a vec as a uniform in WGSL, you would have to wrap it in a struct |
|
Looks like it was fixed in gfx-rs/wgpu#2584 , therefore PR LGTM! |
Andrewp2
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2022
tim-blackbird
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2022
inodentry
approved these changes
Nov 22, 2022
james7132
added
the
S-Ready-For-Final-Review
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 28, 2022
# Objective - Reduce confusion around uniform bindings in materials. I've seen multiple people on discord get confused by it because it uses a struct that is named the same in the rust code and the wgsl code, but doesn't contain the same data. Also, the only reason this works is mostly by chance because the memory happens to align correctly. ## Solution - Remove the confusing parts of the doc ## Notes It's not super clear in the diff why this causes confusion, but essentially, the rust code defines a `CustomMaterial` struct with a color and a texture, but in the wgsl code the struct with the same name only contains the color. People are confused by it because the struct in wgsl doesn't need to be there. You _can_ have complex structs on each side and the macro will even combine it for you if you reuse a binding index, but as it is now, this example seems to confuse more than help people.
|
Pull request successfully merged into main. Build succeeded:
|
bors
bot
changed the title
taiyoungjang
pushed a commit
to taiyoungjang/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2022
…#6701) # Objective - Reduce confusion around uniform bindings in materials. I've seen multiple people on discord get confused by it because it uses a struct that is named the same in the rust code and the wgsl code, but doesn't contain the same data. Also, the only reason this works is mostly by chance because the memory happens to align correctly. ## Solution - Remove the confusing parts of the doc ## Notes It's not super clear in the diff why this causes confusion, but essentially, the rust code defines a `CustomMaterial` struct with a color and a texture, but in the wgsl code the struct with the same name only contains the color. People are confused by it because the struct in wgsl doesn't need to be there. You _can_ have complex structs on each side and the macro will even combine it for you if you reuse a binding index, but as it is now, this example seems to confuse more than help people.
alradish
pushed a commit
to alradish/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 22, 2023
…#6701) # Objective - Reduce confusion around uniform bindings in materials. I've seen multiple people on discord get confused by it because it uses a struct that is named the same in the rust code and the wgsl code, but doesn't contain the same data. Also, the only reason this works is mostly by chance because the memory happens to align correctly. ## Solution - Remove the confusing parts of the doc ## Notes It's not super clear in the diff why this causes confusion, but essentially, the rust code defines a `CustomMaterial` struct with a color and a texture, but in the wgsl code the struct with the same name only contains the color. People are confused by it because the struct in wgsl doesn't need to be there. You _can_ have complex structs on each side and the macro will even combine it for you if you reuse a binding index, but as it is now, this example seems to confuse more than help people.
ItsDoot
pushed a commit
to ItsDoot/bevy
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 1, 2023
…#6701) # Objective - Reduce confusion around uniform bindings in materials. I've seen multiple people on discord get confused by it because it uses a struct that is named the same in the rust code and the wgsl code, but doesn't contain the same data. Also, the only reason this works is mostly by chance because the memory happens to align correctly. ## Solution - Remove the confusing parts of the doc ## Notes It's not super clear in the diff why this causes confusion, but essentially, the rust code defines a `CustomMaterial` struct with a color and a texture, but in the wgsl code the struct with the same name only contains the color. People are confused by it because the struct in wgsl doesn't need to be there. You _can_ have complex structs on each side and the macro will even combine it for you if you reuse a binding index, but as it is now, this example seems to confuse more than help people.
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
Solution
Notes
It's not super clear in the diff why this causes confusion, but essentially, the rust code defines a
CustomMaterialstruct with a color and a texture, but in the wgsl code the struct with the same name only contains the color. People are confused by it because the struct in wgsl doesn't need to be there.You can have complex structs on each side and the macro will even combine it for you if you reuse a binding index, but as it is now, this example seems to confuse more than help people.