Skip to content

chore: netcode for entities 7.0.0 as a dependency - #4158

Open
NoelStephensUnity wants to merge 4 commits into
develop-3.x.xfrom
chore/n4e-hard-dependency
Open

chore: netcode for entities 7.0.0 as a dependency#4158
NoelStephensUnity wants to merge 4 commits into
develop-3.x.xfrom
chore/n4e-hard-dependency

Conversation

@NoelStephensUnity

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Parts of this are taken from #4156.

Purpose of this PR

N4E becomes a hard dependency at 7.0.0, and com.unity.transport moves to 6.5.0 to match it.

  • N4E 7.0.0 ships its unified API - GhostObject, GhostBehaviour, GhostField behind NETCODE_GAMEOBJECT_BRIDGE_EXPERIMENTAL.
  • Also disables the serialization tests that fail under CoreCLR.

Jira ticket

MTT-14623

Changelog

NA

Documentation

  • No documentation changes or additions were necessary.

Testing & QA (How your changes can be verified during release Playtest)

Functional Testing

Manual testing :

  • Manual testing done

Automated tests:

  • Covered by existing automated tests
  • Covered by new automated tests

Does the change require QA team to:

  • Review automated tests?
  • Execute manual tests?
  • Provide feedback about the PR?

If any boxes above are checked the QA team will be automatically added as a PR reviewer.

Up-port

No up-port is required.

Backports

No back-port is required.

… a define

N4E becomes a hard dependency at 7.0.0, and com.unity.transport moves to 6.5.0 to match it.

N4E 7.0.0 ships its unified API - GhostObject, GhostBehaviour, GhostField - behind
NETCODE_GAMEOBJECT_BRIDGE_EXPERIMENTAL, which leaves those types internal in the configuration
NGO ships. A public type cannot derive from an internal one, so the unified path can no longer key
off the package being present: the UNIFIED_NETCODE versionDefine is removed from the four assembly
definitions and the symbol is set by the project instead, alongside N4E's own define.
NetworkObjectBridge is internal for the same reason, and UnifiedBootstrap raises an #error when
only one of the two defines is set.

With N4E present the two packages share the Unity.Netcode namespace, which breaks three things
outside the unified gates:

- N4E's Netcode facade type shadows the namespace, so 22 XML doc crefs and one nameof that
  qualified with Netcode. stopped resolving.
- N4E declares an INetworkStreamDriverConstructor in the shared root that the enclosing namespace
  finds ahead of NGO's, so the one implementation in the editor tests is fully qualified.
- N4E's source generator errors on an assembly that does not reference N4E, so the editor test
  assembly now references it.

Multiplayer Services 2.3.1 does not compile against N4E 7.0.0 and no fix is published, so it is
dropped from the test project manifests. Validation moves to trunk, the only editor that has
dropped N4E as a core package and can resolve the 7.0.0 request rather than its bundled 6.7.0.

The unified work is preserved and still compiles with both defines set: the N4E 6.7.0 spellings are
updated, and GhostObject.ApplyPostTransformMatrixScale, which N4E removed in its scale rework, is
reimplemented over the new PostTransformMatrix model. The unified CI job sets the defines itself
and is no longer a PR check.

Also disables the serialization tests that fail under CoreCLR so the package is not ejected from
the editor manifest batch.

Parts of this are taken from #4156.
@NoelStephensUnity
NoelStephensUnity requested review from a team and EmandM as code owners September 8, 2026 16:45

@u-pr u-pr Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Harness Review

Ship it

The change updates the package dependency surface and isolates the optional unified bridge behind project-level defines; I examined the runtime namespace/API migration, scale bridge call paths, assembly references, manifests, and CI gating.

Reviewed commit c78f679

🤖 Helpful? 👍/👎

Comment thread testproject/ProjectSettings/ProjectSettings.asset
@NoelStephensUnity
NoelStephensUnity enabled auto-merge (squash) September 8, 2026 17:17
Three things the standards job caught, since it opens the project, runs the formatter with --fix and
then fails on any diff at all:

- The fully qualified INetworkStreamDriverConstructor is simplified by the formatter (IDE0001), so
  write it the way the formatter wants. It still resolves to NGO's, since the lookup walks out to
  Unity.Netcode.Transports before reaching the shared root.
- N4E 7.0.0 renamed the serialized GlobalNetCodeConfig field to GlobalNetcodeConfig, which the editor
  rewrites in the test project's settings asset the first time it loads it.
- validation_editors.minimal is back on a released editor. The standards job opens the project with
  it, and trunk rewrites ProjectVersion.txt out from under the cleanliness check. Nothing there needs
  N4E present: a released editor bundles 6.7.0 as a built-in package, so the 7.0.0 request is dropped
  silently and the project builds with no N4E at all - verified on 6000.7.0a6, which resolves and
  compiles clean with N4E absent from packages-lock, PackageCache and ScriptAssemblies alike.
The formatter and the compiler want opposite things here. With N4E present the bare
INetworkStreamDriverConstructor binds to N4E's copy in the shared Unity.Netcode root, which the
enclosing namespace reaches before the using directive, and the class then fails to implement it.
With N4E absent - which is what the standards job's editor resolves - any qualification is redundant
and IDE0001 strips it back off, so the last two attempts each traded one failure for the other.

A file-scope using alias satisfies both. Its target cannot be shortened, since at file scope there is
no enclosing namespace to shorten it against; the use site is a single identifier with no qualified
form; and IDE0005 cannot drop the alias because removing it stops the name resolving at all.
@codecov-github-com

codecov-github-com Bot commented Sep 8, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...cts/Runtime/SceneManagement/NetworkSceneManager.cs 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           develop-3.x.x    #4158      +/-   ##
=================================================
+ Coverage          78.01%   78.25%   +0.24%     
=================================================
  Files                153      154       +1     
  Lines              26260    26543     +283     
=================================================
+ Hits               20486    20771     +285     
+ Misses              5774     5772       -2     
Flag Coverage Δ
NGOv2_project_testproject_ubuntu_pinnedTrunk 77.84% <0.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
.../Runtime/Components/AnticipatedNetworkTransform.cs 80.41% <ø> (ø)
...tcode.gameobjects/Runtime/Core/NetworkBehaviour.cs 86.23% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
...netcode.gameobjects/Runtime/Core/NetworkManager.cs 79.97% <ø> (+0.18%) ⬆️
....netcode.gameobjects/Runtime/Core/NetworkObject.cs 75.31% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
...time/NetworkVariable/AnticipatedNetworkVariable.cs 76.64% <ø> (ø)
...meobjects/Runtime/Spawning/NetworkPrefabHandler.cs 66.66% <ø> (ø)
...cts/Runtime/SceneManagement/NetworkSceneManager.cs 79.49% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 3 files with indirect coverage changes

Components Coverage Δ
com.unity.netcode.gameobjects 78.25% <95.58%> (+0.24%) ⬆️

ℹ️ Need help interpreting these results?

…r version

The 7.0.0 dependency could not be satisfied anywhere. Every editor available today - 6000.7.0a6 and
current trunk alike - lists com.unity.netcode 6.7.0 as mustBeBundled in its manifest, so UPM drops a
7.0.0 request silently: no assemblies, no packages-lock entry, no warning. upm-pvp then fails hard
with "depends on com.unity.netcode, which is not in the lock file", which is what took out Validate
on all three platforms and Package Test on both editors.

Dependency versions are minimums, so asking for 6.7.0 resolves the bundled package today and picks up
7.0.0 by itself once an editor manifest carries it. The transport bump goes back to 2.6.0: 6.5.0 was
never published (the 6.x line is editor-bundled only, latest published is 2.7.4), so it fails
PVP-160-1, which the Validate job explicitly requires - and N4E asks for 6.5.0 itself, so resolution
is unaffected either way. With the dependency resolving everywhere, nothing needs a trunk editor and
validation_editors goes back to what develop had.

Since either version can now be what resolves, the unified path compiles against both, gated on a
UNIFIED_NETCODE_7_0_0 versionDefine keyed to the resolved package version. The 6.7.0 spellings are
aliased to the 7.0.0 names so the use sites read the same either way, except N4E's Netcode class:
inside namespace Unity.Netcode that name binds to the enclosing namespace before any file-scope alias
is considered, so it is aliased as EntitiesNetcode in both. GhostObjectScaleExtensions is 7.0.0-only,
since 6.7.0 still has the method it stands in for.

That also makes the dependency real rather than dropped, which has consequences worth knowing: N4E's
assemblies now build in every project, its ClientServerBootstrap becomes the Entities bootstrap with a
non-zero AutoConnectPort, and it writes a NetcodeConfig into the project when its settings asset does
not resolve one - which is why the GlobalNetCodeConfig field goes back to the 6.7.0 spelling here.

Verified on 6000.7.0a6 against both versions: shipping (unified off), unified against bundled 6.7.0,
and unified against 7.0.0 all compile with zero errors, and the standards check is clean.
{
"name": "com.unity.netcode",
"expression": "1.10.1",
"define": "UNIFIED_NETCODE"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we remove UNIFIED_NETCODE from other places and keep only UNIFIED_NETCODE_7_0_0? I saw other places kept it


### Added

- Netcode for Entities (`com.unity.netcode` 6.7.0) is now a dependency, so installing Netcode for GameObjects also brings it, and its own dependencies (Entities, Burst, Collections), into the project.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- Netcode for Entities (`com.unity.netcode` 6.7.0) is now a dependency, so installing Netcode for GameObjects also brings it, and its own dependencies (Entities, Burst, Collections), into the project.
- Netcode for Entities (`com.unity.netcode` 7.0.0) is now a hard dependency, so installing Netcode for GameObjects also brings it, and its own dependencies (Entities, Burst, Collections), into the project.

"com.unity.nuget.mono-cecil": "1.11.4",
"com.unity.transport": "2.6.0"
"com.unity.transport": "2.6.0",
"com.unity.netcode": "6.7.0"

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So as N4Ev7.0.0 landed properly and will be included in 6000.7.0b1 shouldn't we declare dependency on 7.0.0?

As for transport we should depend on 6.7.0 (their version of core-package bundled with the editor) as this is the version in our minimal supported editor and we may try to lower this in the future (which is allowed) but safer to start with latest

"com.unity.netcode.gameobjects": "file:../../com.unity.netcode.gameobjects",
"com.unity.package-validation-suite": "0.49.0-preview",
"com.unity.services.authentication": "3.7.4",
"com.unity.services.multiplayer": "2.3.1",

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Depending if we will merge this PR first (then we keep this removed) or they release their package first (then we keep it but update it)

"com.unity.mathematics": "1.4.0",
"com.unity.multiplayer.tools": "2.2.11",
"com.unity.netcode": "6.7.0",
"com.unity.netcode": "7.0.0",

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we actually still need manifest-unified?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants