docs: add alternative ways to write a policy #1513
Conversation
| end | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| #### Policy with multiple conditions |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure if it is the right place to mention multiple conditions for one policy.
|
|
||
| ```elixir | ||
| policies do | ||
| policy [condition1, condition2, condition3] do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be sufficient to change the original introduction of checks to contain the list example, which I mentioned above.
|
|
||
| ```elixir | ||
| policies do | ||
| policy always(), authorize_if: always() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I worry a bit about adding confusion for these various syntaxes. There isn't really any good reason for someone to have to know that you can use this keyword list syntax. The do block syntax is preferable. I think better to leave this out here, or at the very least put this at the bottom.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see. I did not know there was a preference toward do block. I will remove it.
In my personal project, I was using mostly the keyword list variant, because I find it easier to read. Also it reduce some lines.
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| #### Policy with `condition` inside `do` block | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's add some explanation here. Like why they might want to specify the condition this way.
Putting the condition inside the policy block can make really long condition lists easier to read.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have added some explanation.
Co-authored-by: Zach Daniel <zachary.s.daniel@gmail.com>
|
@zachdaniel Thanks for the feedback. I have made the requested changes. Could you please have a look again? |
Contributor checklist