Skip to content
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

Provide a mechanism to ignore malformed policy. #68

Open
1 of 2 tasks
yaphatak opened this issue Dec 4, 2023 · 2 comments
Open
1 of 2 tasks

Provide a mechanism to ignore malformed policy. #68

yaphatak opened this issue Dec 4, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
feature-request Request for a new feature

Comments

@yaphatak
Copy link

yaphatak commented Dec 4, 2023

Category

User level API changes

Describe the feature you'd like to request

Provide a configuration on authorize API to Ignore malformed policy and return that malformed policyId in addition to authorization result.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Provide an API to validate the cedar policy. This is not schema validation, but simple syntax or grammar validation. This will help validate policy before storing or even running just before authorization.

Additional context

No response

Is this something that you'd be interested in working on?

  • 👋 I may be able to implement this feature request
  • ⚠️ This feature might incur a breaking change
@yaphatak yaphatak added feature-request Request for a new feature pending-triage Hasn't been triaged yet labels Dec 4, 2023
@andrewmwells-amazon
Copy link
Contributor

This seems like a fairly deep behavior change (i.e., you'd have to add a corresponding API to the Rust). Personally, I think adding an API to sanity-check the cedar policy is a better choice. Can you provide some more context on why you prefer a new configuration of is_authorized?

@yaphatak
Copy link
Author

yaphatak commented Dec 4, 2023

I agree that this is deep behavior change specially we would ideally want to do this in rust binding itself. And, that's why I added an alternate approach as beow. But, I wanted to explain root cause of the feature request.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Provide an API to validate the cedar policy. This is not schema validation, but simple syntax or grammar validation. This will help validate policy before storing or even running just before authorization.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature-request Request for a new feature
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants