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

permission view = system.view or ((is_public or (is_partner and partner) or (viewer or company.maintain or organization.maintain or team.view)) not denied)

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

• Detail Each Component: Ensure that each component of a permission condition (e.g., is_public, is_partner) is individually evaluated and asserted in the 'Coverage' command.
• Comprehensive Coverage Analysis: Modify the 'Coverage' command to analyze all aspects of a condition, preventing partial or incomplete evaluations.
• Quality Checks: Introduce quality checks to validate the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the coverage.

Goals

• Accurate Coverage Assessment: Achieve a more accurate and thorough evaluation of permission conditions.

Action Items

• Review the current implementation of the 'Coverage' command.
• Redesign the command to incorporate detailed assessments of each condition part.
• Implement tests and quality checks for the revised 'Coverage' command.
• Update documentation to reflect the new standards and procedures.

Request for Comments

We seek feedback and suggestions, particularly regarding:

• Approaches for enhancing detail and accuracy in the 'Coverage' command.
• Potential challenges and solutions in the redesign process.
• Ideas to ensure the effectiveness of the new implementation.