godot-docs/tutorials/best_practices/scene_organization.rst

:article_outdated: True

.. _doc_scene_organization:

Scene organization
==================

This article covers topics related to the effective organization of
scene content. Which nodes should one use? Where should one place them?
How should they interact?

How to build relationships effectively
--------------------------------------

When Godot users begin crafting their own scenes, they often run into the
following problem:

They create their first scene and fill it with content only to eventually end
up saving branches of their scene into separate scenes as the nagging feeling
that they should split things up starts to accumulate. However, they then
notice that the hard references they were able to rely on before are no longer
possible. Re-using the scene in multiple places creates issues because the
node paths do not find their targets and signal connections established in the
editor break.

To fix these problems, one must instantiate the sub-scenes without them
requiring details about their environment. One needs to be able to trust
that the sub-scene will create itself without being picky about how one uses
it.

One of the biggest things to consider in OOP is maintaining
focused, singular-purpose classes with
`loose coupling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_coupling>`_
to other parts of the codebase. This keeps the size of objects small (for
maintainability) and improves their reusability.

These OOP best practices have *several* implications for best practices
in scene structure and script usage.

**If at all possible, one should design scenes to have no dependencies.**
That is, one should create scenes that keep everything they need within
themselves.

If a scene must interact with an external context, experienced developers
recommend the use of
`Dependency Injection <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection>`_.
This technique involves having a high-level API provide the dependencies of the
low-level API. Why do this? Because classes which rely on their external
environment can inadvertently trigger bugs and unexpected behavior.

To do this, one must expose data and then rely on a parent context to
initialize it:

1. Connect to a signal. Extremely safe, but should be used only to "respond" to
   behavior, not start it. Note that signal names are usually past-tense verbs
   like "entered", "skill_activated", or "item_collected".

   .. tabs::
     .. code-tab:: gdscript GDScript

       # Parent
       $Child.signal_name.connect(method_on_the_object)

       # Child
       signal_name.emit() # Triggers parent-defined behavior.

     .. code-tab:: csharp

       // Parent
       GetNode("Child").Connect("SignalName", ObjectWithMethod, "MethodOnTheObject");

       // Child
       EmitSignal("SignalName"); // Triggers parent-defined behavior.

2. Call a method. Used to start behavior.

   .. tabs::
     .. code-tab:: gdscript GDScript

       # Parent
       $Child.method_name = "do"

       # Child, assuming it has String property 'method_name' and method 'do'.
       call(method_name) # Call parent-defined method (which child must own).

     .. code-tab:: csharp

       // Parent
       GetNode("Child").Set("MethodName", "Do");

       // Child
       Call(MethodName); // Call parent-defined method (which child must own).

3. Initialize a :ref:`Callable <class_Callable>` property. Safer than a method
   as ownership of the method is unnecessary. Used to start behavior.

   .. tabs::
     .. code-tab:: gdscript GDScript

       # Parent
       $Child.func_property = object_with_method.method_on_the_object

       # Child
       func_property.call() # Call parent-defined method (can come from anywhere).

     .. code-tab:: csharp

       // Parent
       GetNode("Child").Set("FuncProperty", GD.FuncRef(ObjectWithMethod, "MethodOnTheObject"));

       // Child
       FuncProperty.CallFunc(); // Call parent-defined method (can come from anywhere).

4. Initialize a Node or other Object reference.

   .. tabs::
     .. code-tab:: gdscript GDScript

       # Parent
       $Child.target = self

       # Child
       print(target) # Use parent-defined node.

     .. code-tab:: csharp

       // Parent
       GetNode("Child").Set("Target", this);

       // Child
       GD.Print(Target); // Use parent-defined node.

5. Initialize a NodePath.

   .. tabs::
     .. code-tab:: gdscript GDScript

       # Parent
       $Child.target_path = ".."

       # Child
       get_node(target_path) # Use parent-defined NodePath.

     .. code-tab:: csharp

       // Parent
       GetNode("Child").Set("TargetPath", NodePath(".."));

       // Child
       GetNode(TargetPath); // Use parent-defined NodePath.

These options hide the points of access from the child node. This in turn
keeps the child **loosely coupled** to its environment. One can re-use it
in another context without any extra changes to its API.

.. note::

  Although the examples above illustrate parent-child relationships,
  the same principles apply towards all object relations. Nodes which
  are siblings should only be aware of their hierarchies while an ancestor
  mediates their communications and references.

  .. tabs::
    .. code-tab:: gdscript GDScript

      # Parent
      $Left.target = $Right.get_node("Receiver")

      # Left
      var target: Node
      func execute():
          # Do something with 'target'.

      # Right
      func _init():
          var receiver = Receiver.new()
          add_child(receiver)

    .. code-tab:: csharp

      // Parent
      GetNode<Left>("Left").Target = GetNode("Right/Receiver");

      public partial class Left : Node
      {
          public Node Target = null;

          public void Execute()
          {
              // Do something with 'Target'.
          }
      }

      public partial class Right : Node
      {
          public Node Receiver = null;

          public Right()
          {
              Receiver = ResourceLoader.Load<Script>("Receiver.cs").New();
              AddChild(Receiver);
          }
      }

  The same principles also apply to non-Node objects that maintain dependencies
  on other objects. Whichever object actually owns the objects should manage
  the relationships between them.

.. warning::

  One should favor keeping data in-house (internal to a scene) though as
  placing a dependency on an external context, even a loosely coupled one,
  still means that the node will expect something in its environment to be
  true. The project's design philosophies should prevent this from happening.
  If not, the code's inherent liabilities will force developers to use
  documentation to keep track of object relations on a microscopic scale; this
  is otherwise known as development hell. Writing code that relies on external
  documentation for one to use it safely is error-prone by default.

  To avoid creating and maintaining such documentation, one converts the
  dependent node ("child" above) into a tool script that implements
  ``_get_configuration_warning()``.
  Returning a non-empty string from it will make the Scene dock generate a
  warning icon with the string as a tooltip by the node. This is the same icon
  that appears for nodes such as the
  :ref:`Area2D <class_Area2D>` node when it has no child
  :ref:`CollisionShape2D <class_CollisionShape2D>` nodes defined. The editor
  then self-documents the scene through the script code. No content duplication
  via documentation is necessary.

  A GUI like this can better inform project users of critical information about
  a Node. Does it have external dependencies? Have those dependencies been
  satisfied? Other programmers, and especially designers and writers, will need
  clear instructions in the messages telling them what to do to configure it.

So, why does all this complex switcharoo work? Well, because scenes operate
best when they operate alone. If unable to work alone, then working with
others anonymously (with minimal hard dependencies, i.e. loose coupling)
is the next best thing. Inevitably, changes may need to be made to a class and
if these changes cause it to interact with other scenes in unforeseen ways,
then things will start to break down. The whole point of all this indirection
is to avoid ending up in a situation where changing one class results in
adversely effecting other classes dependent on it.

Scripts and scenes, as extensions of engine classes, should abide
by *all* OOP principles. Examples include...

- `SOLID <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID>`_
- `DRY <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself>`_
- `KISS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle>`_
- `YAGNI <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it>`_

Choosing a node tree structure
------------------------------

So, a developer starts work on a game only to stop at the vast possibilities
before them. They might know what they want to do, what systems they want to
have, but *where* to put them all? Well, how one goes about making their game
is always up to them. One can construct node trees in countless ways.
But, for those who are unsure, this helpful guide can give them a sample of
a decent structure to start with.

A game should always have a sort of "entry point"; somewhere the developer can
definitively track where things begin so that they can follow the logic as it
continues elsewhere. This place also serves as a bird's eye view of all of the
other data and logic in the program. For traditional applications, this would
be the "main" function. In this case, it would be a Main node.

    - Node "Main" (main.gd)

The ``main.gd`` script would then serve as the primary controller of one's
game.

Then one has their actual in-game "World" (a 2D or 3D one). This can be a child
of Main. In addition, one will need a primary GUI for their game that manages
the various menus and widgets the project needs.

    - Node "Main" (main.gd)
        - Node2D/Node3D "World" (game_world.gd)
        - Control "GUI" (gui.gd)

When changing levels, one can then swap out the children of the "World" node.
:ref:`Changing scenes manually <doc_change_scenes_manually>` gives users full
control over how their game world transitions.

The next step is to consider what gameplay systems one's project requires.
If one has a system that...

1. tracks all of its data internally
2. should be globally accessible
3. should exist in isolation

... then one should create an :ref:`autoload 'singleton' node <doc_singletons_autoload>`.

.. note::

  For smaller games, a simpler alternative with less control would be to have
  a "Game" singleton that simply calls the
  :ref:`SceneTree.change_scene_to_file() <class_SceneTree_method_change_scene_to_file>` method
  to swap out the main scene's content. This structure more or less keeps
  the "World" as the main game node.

  Any GUI would need to also be a
  singleton; be a transitory part of the "World"; or be manually added as a
  direct child of the root. Otherwise, the GUI nodes would also delete
  themselves during scene transitions.

If one has systems that modify other systems' data, one should define those as
their own scripts or scenes rather than autoloads. For more information on the
reasons, please see the
:ref:`Autoloads versus regular nodes <doc_autoloads_versus_internal_nodes>`
documentation.

Each subsystem within one's game should have its own section within the
SceneTree. One should use parent-child relationships only in cases where nodes
are effectively elements of their parents. Does removing the parent reasonably
mean that one should also remove the children? If not, then it should have its
own place in the hierarchy as a sibling or some other relation.

.. note::

  In some cases, one needs these separated nodes to *also* position themselves
  relative to each other. One can use the
  :ref:`RemoteTransform <class_RemoteTransform3D>` /
  :ref:`RemoteTransform2D <class_RemoteTransform2D>` nodes for this purpose.
  They will allow a target node to conditionally inherit selected transform
  elements from the Remote\* node. To assign the ``target``
  :ref:`NodePath <class_NodePath>`, use one of the following:

  1. A reliable third party, likely a parent node, to mediate the assignment.
  2. A group, to easily pull a reference to the desired node (assuming there
     will only ever be one of the targets).

  When should one do this? Well, this is subjective. The dilemma arises when
  one must micro-manage when a node must move around the SceneTree to preserve
  itself. For example...

  - Add a "player" node to a "room".
  - Need to change rooms, so one must delete the current room.
  - Before the room can be deleted, one must preserve and/or move the player.

    Is memory a concern?

    - If not, one can just create the two rooms, move the player
      and delete the old one. No problem.

    If so, one will need to...

    - Move the player somewhere else in the tree.
    - Delete the room.
    - Instantiate and add the new room.
    - Re-add the player.

  The issue is that the player here is a "special case"; one where the
  developers must *know* that they need to handle the player this way for the
  project. As such, the only way to reliably share this information as a team
  is to *document* it. Keeping implementation details in documentation however
  is dangerous. It's a maintenance burden, strains code readability, and bloats
  the intellectual content of a project unnecessarily.

  In a more complex game with larger assets, it can be a better idea to simply
  keep the player somewhere else in the SceneTree entirely. This results in:

  1. More consistency.
  2. No "special cases" that must be documented and maintained somewhere.
  3. No opportunity for errors to occur because these details are not accounted
     for.

  In contrast, if one ever needs to have a child node that does *not* inherit
  the transform of their parent, one has the following options:

  1. The **declarative** solution: place a :ref:`Node <class_Node>` in between
     them. As nodes with no transform, Nodes will not pass along such
     information to their children.
  2. The **imperative** solution: Use the ``top_level`` property for the
     :ref:`CanvasItem <class_CanvasItem_property_top_level>` or
     :ref:`Node3D <class_Node3D_property_top_level>` node. This will make
     the node ignore its inherited transform.

.. note::

  If building a networked game, keep in mind which nodes and gameplay systems
  are relevant to all players versus those just pertinent to the authoritative
  server. For example, users do not all need to have a copy of every players'
  "PlayerController" logic. Instead, they need only their own. As such, keeping
  these in a separate branch from the "world" can help simplify the management
  of game connections and the like.

The key to scene organization is to consider the SceneTree in relational terms
rather than spatial terms. Are the nodes dependent on their parent's existence?
If not, then they can thrive all by themselves somewhere else.
If they are dependent, then it stands to reason that they should be children of
that parent (and likely part of that parent's scene if they aren't already).

Does this mean nodes themselves are components? Not at all.
Godot's node trees form an aggregation relationship, not one of composition.
But while one still has the flexibility to move nodes around, it is still best
when such moves are unnecessary by default.