# Objective

> Issue raised on
[Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1179182488787103776)

Currently the following code fails due to a missing `TypePath` bound:

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)] struct Foo<T>(T);
#[derive(Reflect)] struct Bar<T>(Foo<T>);
#[derive(Reflect)] struct Baz<T>(Bar<Foo<T>>);
```

## Solution

Add `TypePath` to the per-field bounds instead of _just_ the generic
type parameter bounds.

### Related Work

It should be noted that #9046 would help make these kinds of issues
easier to work around and/or avoid entirely.

---

## Changelog

- Fixes missing `TypePath` requirement when deriving `Reflect` on nested
generics

# Objective

> Issue raised on
[Discord](https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1002362493634629796/1179182488787103776)

Currently the following code fails due to a missing `TypePath` bound:

```rust
#[derive(Reflect)] struct Foo<T>(T);
#[derive(Reflect)] struct Bar<T>(Foo<T>);
#[derive(Reflect)] struct Baz<T>(Bar<Foo<T>>);
```

## Solution

Add `TypePath` to the per-field bounds instead of _just_ the generic
type parameter bounds.

### Related Work

It should be noted that bevyengine#9046 would help make these kinds of issues
easier to work around and/or avoid entirely.

---

## Changelog

- Fixes missing `TypePath` requirement when deriving `Reflect` on nested
generics

# Objective

- Provides an alternate solution to the one implemented in #10791
without breaking changes.

## Solution

- Changes the bounds of macro-generated `TypePath` implementations to
universally ignore the types of fields, rather than use the same bounds
as other implementations. I think this is a more holistic solution than
#10791 because it totally erases the finicky bounds we currently
generate, helping to untangle the reflection trait system.