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

Rule: directory-package-mismatch #1024

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 29, 2024
Merged

Rule: directory-package-mismatch #1024

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 29, 2024

Conversation

anderseknert
Copy link
Member

Time to ruffle some feathers! Or move to the custom category, I haven't decided yet 😆 Either way, while this rule can certainly feel disruptive, larger policy projects should have a uniform structure.

Some notes on the implementation:

  • Does not complain if a single file is provided, i.e. when there is no path except for the file. So regal lint p.rego will not result in a violation.
  • Allows _test packages to either reside in the same directory as the package they test (this is the default) or to be kept in a separate directory matching the package exactly (optional).

Other than the rule implementation itself, this naturally required that we we restructured all of our own directories to follow this convention. I wasn't too sure about it at first, but the result definitely seems both clean and correct, so I think we're right about this. Also helped correct a few typos in names!

Fixes #1007

([via Regal](https://docs.styra.com/regal/language-server#code-completions)) suggesting the package path
`authorization.rbac.roles`.

![package path auto-completion](../../assets/rules/pkg_name_completion.png)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ugh :/ But thanks! Fixed in last push.

Copy link
Member

@charlieegan3 charlieegan3 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! It's an opinion, but opinions like these are going to really help new Rego users in particular here.

Time to ruffle some feathers! Or move to the `custom` category, I
haven't decided yet 😆 Either way, while this rule can certainly
feel disruptive, larger policy projects *should* have a uniform
structure.

Some notes on the implementation:
- Does not complain if a single file is provided, i.e. when there
  is no path except for the file. So `regal lint p.rego` will not
  result in a violation.
- Allows `_test` packages to either reside in the same directory
  as the package they test (this is the default) or to be kept in
  a separate directory matching the package exactly (optional).

Other than the rule implementation itself, this naturally required
that we we restructured all of our own directories to follow this
convention. I wasn't too sure about it at first, but the result
definitely seems both clean and correct, so I think we're right about
this. Also helped correct a few typos in names!

Fixes #1007

Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <[email protected]>
@anderseknert anderseknert merged commit 9ee83e8 into main Aug 29, 2024
3 checks passed
@anderseknert anderseknert deleted the directory-structure branch August 29, 2024 11:09
srenatus pushed a commit to srenatus/regal that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2024
Time to ruffle some feathers! Or move to the `custom` category, I
haven't decided yet 😆 Either way, while this rule can certainly
feel disruptive, larger policy projects *should* have a uniform
structure.

Some notes on the implementation:
- Does not complain if a single file is provided, i.e. when there
  is no path except for the file. So `regal lint p.rego` will not
  result in a violation.
- Allows `_test` packages to either reside in the same directory
  as the package they test (this is the default) or to be kept in
  a separate directory matching the package exactly (optional).

Other than the rule implementation itself, this naturally required
that we we restructured all of our own directories to follow this
convention. I wasn't too sure about it at first, but the result
definitely seems both clean and correct, so I think we're right about
this. Also helped correct a few typos in names!

Fixes StyraInc#1007

Signed-off-by: Anders Eknert <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rule: directory-package-mismatch
2 participants