-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
ast: Adding rule_head_general_refs capabilities feature flag #6346
Merged
johanfylling
merged 9 commits into
open-policy-agent:main
from
johanfylling:general_refs/capabilities_feature
Nov 15, 2023
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d7b8476
ast: Adding `rule_head_general_refs` capabilities feature flag
johanfylling 651faae
Adding tests for capabilities feature flags
johanfylling d48b730
Adding documentation
johanfylling 9388a94
Merge branch 'main' into general_refs/capabilities_feature
johanfylling b34461e
Adding `rule_head_refs` capabilities feature flag to minimum compatib…
johanfylling 164a51e
Updating docs
johanfylling 3896ac5
Merge branch 'main' into general_refs/capabilities_feature
johanfylling e200ff4
Merge branch 'main' into general_refs/capabilities_feature
johanfylling a47427a
Merge branch 'main' into general_refs/capabilities_feature
johanfylling File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Keep wondering if...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
rule_head_general_refs
without alsorule_head_ref_string_prefixes
. We could add a more specific error message for when the former is present but not the latter.rule_head_ref_string_prefixes
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry I was a bit too brief:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the reason for why I didn't let one feature imply the other is out of concern that someone already has a procedure for stripping out
rule_head_ref_string_prefixes
from a capabilities-file generated by OPA, and if we introduce a new feature flag that will enable refs anyways, then their setup will start behaving against their configuration.Of course, I think the risk of this is close to non-existent; but I'm hesitant to break an already established contract for
rule_head_ref_string_prefixes
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agreed. What do you think about calling the new feature simply "rule_head_refs"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd be in favor of that. Technically, I think we could even consider deprecating
rule_head_ref_string_prefixes
, since it's been a byproduct of how this feature got introduced; not really a desirable feature switch to have, in my opinion.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we just remove it, without first deprecating it? Then we'd effectively just replace
rule_head_ref_string_prefixes
withrule_head_refs
now.Again, I'm not very familiar with how this is actually used, and what impact breaking changes have; but if we're willing to break an egg, perhaps we can thoroughly stomp on it 😈 😄.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 I think that's OK. @ashutosh-narkar ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure. Let's just make sure we add a change log entry, message this in slack etc. to let the community know about this after we merge this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given how the minimal compatible version is calculated, I opted to go with @srenatus's first suggestion, and let the
rule_head_refs
capability map to all ref head rule permutations, and letrule_head_ref_string_prefixes
map to the special case of string-prefix refs.