Open tolgaOzen opened 10 months ago
/bounty $250
/attempt #837
with your implementation plan/claim #837
in the PR body to claim the bountyDon't wait to be assigned. A reward will be given for the best PR.
Thank you for contributing to Permify/permify!
Add a bounty • Share on socials
Attempt | Started (GMT+0) | Solution |
---|---|---|
🟢 @vijayraghav-io | Nov 15, 2023, 3:06:31 PM | #844 |
@tolgaOzen
system.view
is the highest access available but then you go on to say:
This approach can lead to suboptimal results and inaccuracies in permission evaluation.
Can you please clarify the inaccuracy?
/attempt #837
💡 @vijayraghav-io submitted a pull request that claims the bounty. You can visit your bounty board to reward.
Description
We need to improve the accuracy and detail of the 'Coverage' command used in evaluating action/permission conditions within our system. A key concern is ensuring that every aspect of a permission condition is thoroughly covered and assessed for accuracy. The current implementation may lead to incomplete assessments, as exemplified by the sample condition provided.
Sample Condition for Reference
In this example, asserting only a part of the condition (like
system.view
) is considered sufficient for coverage, even if other parts are not asserted. This approach can lead to suboptimal results and inaccuracies in coverage evaluation.Suggested Improvements
is_public
,is_partner
) is individually evaluated and asserted in the 'Coverage' command.Goals
Action Items
Request for Comments
We seek feedback and suggestions, particularly regarding: