From c4538b489f7c5cd76472fd9c416f2478b644ba2d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Charlie Egan Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 11:24:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fix typo Signed-off-by: Charlie Egan --- style-guide.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/style-guide.md b/style-guide.md index 3aa61ef..e4e7dc3 100644 --- a/style-guide.md +++ b/style-guide.md @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ When encountering undefined references inside of rules, evaluation of the rule h undefined, unless of course, a `default` value has been provided. While saying `allow is undefined` or `allow is false` if encountering undefined in a rule is likely desirable, this doesn't hold true when working with "inverted" rules - i.e. rules like `deny` (as opposed to `allow`). Saying `deny is undefined` or `deny is false` if undefined is -encountered, essentially means that any occurence of undefined (such as when attributes are missing in the input +encountered, essentially means that any occurrence of undefined (such as when attributes are missing in the input document) would lead to the `deny` rule not getting enforced. This is particularly common writing partial rules (i.e. rules that build [sets](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/policy-language/#generating-sets) or [objects](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/docs/latest/policy-language/#generating-objects)).