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

refactor: Nullable and Modernization for Core projects #2643

Open
wants to merge 16 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Kryptos-FR
Copy link
Member

@Kryptos-FR Kryptos-FR commented Feb 16, 2025

PR Details

Similar to #2639.

Description

As in the previous PR, enable C# built-in nullable annotations on the project and remove references to our old custom ones. In addition, modernization of the code (pattern matching, file-scoped namespaces, collection initialization, etc.

Equals

Worth of note is a fix of the Equals(object?) implementation for some structs in Core.Mathematics. While it was unlikely to be used (as the same structs also define a type version of Equals), the implementation was doing unnecessary checks and struct boxing (which also had Resharper detect the implementation as mutating).

Consider the previous implementation for Vector3:

public override bool Equals(object value)
{
    if (value == null)
        return false;

    if (value.GetType() != GetType())
        return false;

     return Equals((Vector3)value);
}

The corresponding IL code is:

IL_0000: ldarg.1
IL_0001: brtrue.s IL_0005

IL_0003: ldc.i4.0
IL_0004: ret

IL_0005: ldarg.1
IL_0006: callvirt instance class [System.Runtime]System.Type [System.Runtime]System.Object::GetType()
IL_000b: ldarg.0
IL_000c: ldobj Vector3
IL_0011: box Vector3
IL_0016: call instance class [System.Runtime]System.Type [System.Runtime]System.Object::GetType()
IL_001b: call bool [System.Runtime]System.Type::op_Inequality(class [System.Runtime]System.Type, class [System.Runtime]System.Type)
IL_0020: brfalse.s IL_0024

IL_0022: ldc.i4.0
IL_0023: ret

IL_0024: ldarg.0
IL_0025: ldarg.1
IL_0026: unbox.any Vector3
IL_002b: call instance bool Vector3::Equals(valuetype Vector3)
IL_0030: ret

We can clearly see the virtual calls necessary for comparing the types as well as the boxing required for such call.

The new implementation is simpler:

public override readonly bool Equals(object? value)
{
    return value is Vector3 vector && Equals(vector);
}

And the corresponding IL also:

IL_0000: ldarg.1
IL_0001: isinst Vector3
IL_0006: brfalse.s IL_0017

IL_0008: ldarg.1
IL_0009: unbox.any Vector3
IL_000e: stloc.0
IL_000f: ldarg.0
IL_0010: ldloc.0
IL_0011: call instance bool Vector3::Equals(valuetype Vector3)
IL_0016: ret

IL_0017: ldc.i4.0
IL_0018: ret

Hashcode

Another point of improvement is the computation of hashcodes. In lots of places we had a custom implementation that wasn't necessary efficient or even correct (sometimes it was missing the unchecked context). .NET provides a battle-tested implementation with the right properties and efficiency.

Our previous implementation for Matrix:

public override int GetHashCode()
{
    return M11.GetHashCode() + M12.GetHashCode() + M13.GetHashCode() + M14.GetHashCode() +
        M21.GetHashCode() + M22.GetHashCode() + M23.GetHashCode() + M24.GetHashCode() +
        M31.GetHashCode() + M32.GetHashCode() + M33.GetHashCode() + M34.GetHashCode() +
        M41.GetHashCode() + M42.GetHashCode() + M43.GetHashCode() + M44.GetHashCode();
}

Now, using Hashcode.Combine:

public override readonly int GetHashCode()
{
    return HashCode.Combine(
        HashCode.Combine(M11, M12, M13, M14),
        HashCode.Combine(M21, M22, M23, M24),
        HashCode.Combine(M31, M32, M33, M34),
        HashCode.Combine(M41, M42, M43, M44)
    );
}

Swapping

Another fun improvement is how to swap two values. The usual implementation was to use a temporary variable:

var tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;

We can now use a value tuple:

(a, b) = (b, a);

In my opinion it does improve readability when applied to Matrix.Transpose.
Before:

public void Transpose()
{
    float temp;
    temp = M21; M21 = M12; M12 = temp;
    temp = M31; M31 = M13; M13 = temp;
    temp = M41; M41 = M14; M14 = temp;
    
    temp = M32; M32 = M23; M23 = temp;
    temp = M42; M42 = M24; M24 = temp;
    
    temp = M43; M43 = M34; M34 = temp;
}

After:

public void Transpose()
{
    (M21, M12) = (M12, M21);
    (M31, M13) = (M13, M31);
    (M41, M14) = (M14, M41);
    
    (M32, M23) = (M23, M32);
    (M42, M24) = (M24, M42);
    
    (M43, M34) = (M34, M43);
}

Related Issue

#2155
#2156

Types of changes

  • Docs change / refactoring / dependency upgrade
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist

  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have added tests to cover my changes.
  • All new and existing tests passed.
  • I have built and run the editor to try this change out.

@Kryptos-FR Kryptos-FR force-pushed the feature/modernize-code branch from c023453 to b133105 Compare February 16, 2025 20:09
@Kryptos-FR Kryptos-FR added the area-Core Issue of the engine unrelated to other defined areas label Feb 16, 2025
@Kryptos-FR Kryptos-FR marked this pull request as ready for review February 16, 2025 20:23
@Kryptos-FR Kryptos-FR requested a review from Eideren February 16, 2025 20:51
@Kryptos-FR
Copy link
Member Author

Note: I will do a few more projects in that PR (Core.Yaml, Core.Design, Core.Translation) as well as their corresponding test projects.

@Kryptos-FR Kryptos-FR force-pushed the feature/modernize-code branch from 8e01cdb to f3a7b5a Compare February 17, 2025 18:25
@Kryptos-FR Kryptos-FR force-pushed the feature/modernize-code branch from f3a7b5a to 8c62e52 Compare February 18, 2025 16:26
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area-Core Issue of the engine unrelated to other defined areas
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants