-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
docs: Improve explanations for initial examples #7677
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
docs: Improve explanations for initial examples #7677
Conversation
We had some feedback that the initial examples in the docs were not clear enough and needed some more explanation. Signed-off-by: Charlie Egan <[email protected]>
✅ Deploy Preview for openpolicyagent ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! Does this really address the issue described though?
evaluates to True even while the fort two network .public values are false. I really miss some explanation here.
I take that to mean they did not understand how multiple incremental rules are OR'ed, and rather expected them to be AND'ed here (as the expectation was that one false result would fail eval)
I'd tried to address that with the #or comments in this new code but perhaps a more prominent call out is needed? |
I have added a note in 406e16a |
Signed-off-by: Charlie Egan <[email protected]>
406e16a
to
58a3e29
Compare
Thanks Anders! |
This is following some additional feedback from the reporter of open-policy-agent#7677 Signed-off-by: Charlie Egan <[email protected]>
This is following some additional feedback from the reporter of open-policy-agent#7677 Signed-off-by: Charlie Egan <[email protected]>
This is following some additional feedback from the reporter of #7677 Signed-off-by: Charlie Egan <[email protected]>
We had some feedback that the initial examples in the docs were not clear enough and needed some more explanation.
