Make the ui_surface module public. #22056
Merged
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
IQuick143
added
C-Docs
ickshonpe
approved these changes
Dec 7, 2025
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIRC it was me who added the print_ui_layout_tree function a couple of years ago, and back then there wasn't a ui_surface module and UiSurface was still in layout/mod.rs. And I haven't given it a thought really since then.
Making ui_surface public seems fine, shouldn't cause any problems.
kfc35
approved these changes
Dec 8, 2025
IQuick143
added
S-Ready-For-Final-Review
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
print_ui_layout_treeis exported, but not usable #17909Solution
ui_surfacemodule public (not just pub(crate)), so that UiSurface can be querried and used with the function.Notes
Making this public may break encapsulation (notably it could allow removing the Resource), but given how lax the guarantees of ECS state are, I don't think that (a resource existing) is an assumption anyone can truly rely on.