ericjkao / rego-style-guide

Style guide for Rego

Rego Style Guide

The purpose of this style guide is to provide a collection of recommendations and best practices for authoring Rego. From Styra, the founders of Open Policy Agent (OPA), and some of the most experienced members of the community, we hope to share lessons learnt from authoring and reviewing hundreds of thousands of lines of Rego over the years.

With new features, language constructs, and other improvements continuously finding their way into OPA, we aim to keep this style guide a reflection of what we consider current best practices. Make sure to check back every once in a while, and see the changelog for updates since your last visit.

Contents

• General Advice
  • Optimize for readability, not performance
  • Use opa fmt
  • Use strict mode
  • Use metadata annotations
  • Get to know the built-in functions
  • Consider using JSON schemas for type checking
• Style
  • Prefer snake_case for rule names and variables
  • Keep line length <= 120 characters
• Rules
  • Use helper rules and functions
  • Use negation to handle undefined
  • Consider partial helper rules over comprehensions in rule bodies
  • Avoid prefixing rules and functions with get_ or list_
• Variables and Data Types
  • Use in to check for membership
  • Prefer some .. in for iteration
  • Use every to express FOR ALL
  • Don't use unification operator for assignment or comparison
  • Don't use undeclared variables
  • Prefer sets over arrays (where applicable)
• Functions
  • Prefer using arguments over input and data
  • Avoid using the last argument for the return value
• Regex
  • Use raw strings for regex patterns
• Imports
  • Use explicit imports for future keywords
  • Prefer importing modules over rules and functions
  • Avoid importing input

General Advice

Optimize for readability, not performance

Rego is a declarative language, which in the best case means you express what you want rather than how it should be retrieved. When authoring policy, do not try to be "smart" about assumed performance characteristics or optimizations. That's what OPA should worry about!

Optimize for readability and obviousness. Optimize for performance only if you've identified performance issues in your policy, and even if you do — making your policy more compact or "clever" almost never helps at addressing the problem at hand.

Related Resources

• Policy Performance

Use opa fmt

The opa fmt tool ensures consistent formatting across teams and projects. While certainly not perfect (yet!), unified formatting is a big win, and saves a lot of time in code reviews arguing over details around style.

A good idea could be to run opa fmt --write on save, which can be configured in most editors. If you want to enforce opa fmt formatting as part of your build pipeline, use opa fmt --fail.

In order to not flood this guide with data, formatting conventions covered by opa fmt will not be included here.

Tip: opa fmt uses tabs for indentation. By default, GitHub uses 8 spaces to display tabs, which is arguably a bit much. You can change this preference for your account in https://github.com/settings/appearance, or provide an .editorconfig file in your policy repository, which will be used by GitHub (and other tools) to properly display your Rego files:

[*.rego]
end_of_line = lf
insert_final_newline = true
charset = utf-8
indent_style = tab
indent_size = 4

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a way to enforce this for code blocks displayed in markdown (.md) files.

Use strict mode

Strict mode provides extra checks for common mistakes like redundant imports, or unused variables. Include an opa check --strict path/to/polices step as part of your build pipeline.

Use metadata annotations

Favor metadata annotations over regular comments. Metadata annotations allow external tools and editors to parse their contents, potentially leveraging them for something useful, like in-line explanations, generated docs, etc.

Avoid

# Base package composing the decision from deny rules in sub-packages
package main

import future.keywords.contains
import future.keywords.if

# Aggregate deny rules from package(s) under `authorization` based
# on first path component in input
router contains msg if {
    data["authorization"][input.path[0]].deny[msg]
}

Prefer

# METADATA
# description: Base package composing the decision from deny rules in sub-packages
package main

import future.keywords.contains
import future.keywords.if

# METADATA
# description: |
#  Aggregate deny rules from package(s) under `authorization` based
#  on first path component in input
router contains msg if {
    data["authorization"][input.path[0]].deny[msg]
}

Notes / Exceptions

Use regular comments inside of rule bodies, or for packages and rules you consider "internal".

Related Resources

• Annotations

Get to know the built-in functions

With more than 150 built-in functions tailor-made for policy evaluation, there's a good chance that some of them can help you accomplish your goal.

Consider using JSON schemas for type checking

As you author Rego policy, providing JSON schemas for your input (and possibly data) enables strict type checking, letting you avoid simple — but common — mistakes, like typos, or referencing nested attributes in the wrong location. This extra level of verification improves both the developer experience as well as the quality of your policies.

Style

Prefer snake_case for rule names and variables

The built-in functions use snake_case for naming — follow that convention for your own rules, functions, and variables.

Avoid

userIsAdmin if "admin" in input.user.roles

Prefer

user_is_admin if "admin" in input.user.roles

Notes / Exceptions

For many policy types, you might not control the format of the input data — if the domain of a policy (e.g. Envoy) mandates a different style, making an exception might seem reasonable. Adapting policy format after input is however prone to inconsistencies, as you'll likely end up mixing different styles in the same policy (due to imports of common code, etc).

Keep line length <= 120 characters

Long lines are tedious to read. Keep line length at 120 characters or below.

Avoid

frontend_admin_users := [username | some user in input.users; "frontend" in user.domains; "admin" in user.roles; username := user.username]

Prefer

frontend_admin_users := [username |
    some user in input.users
    "frontend" in user.domains
    "admin" in user.roles
    username := user.username
]

Rules

Use helper rules and functions

Helper rules makes policies more readable, and for repeated conditions more performant as well. If your rule contains more than a few simple expressions, consider splitting it into multiple rules with good names.

Avoid

allow if {
    "developer" in input.user.roles
    input.request.method in {"GET", "HEAD"}
    startswith(input.request.path, "/docs")
}

allow if {
    "developer" in input.user.roles
    input.request.method in {"GET", "HEAD"}
    startswith(input.request.path, "/api")
}

Prefer

allow if {
    is_developer
    read_request
    startswith(input.request.path, "/docs")
}

allow if {
    is_developer
    read_request
    startswith(input.request.path, "/api")
}

read_request if input.request.method in {"GET", "HEAD"}

is_developer if "developer" in input.user.roles

Additionally, helper rules and functions may be kept in (and imported from) separate modules, allowing you to build a logical — and reusable! — structure for your policy files.

Use negation to handle undefined

When encountering undefined references inside of rules, evaluation of the rule halts and the rule itself evaluates to 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 document) would lead to the deny rule not getting enforced. This is particularly common writing partial rules (i.e. rules that build sets or objects).

Consider for example this simple rule:

Avoid

authorized := count(deny) == 0

deny contains "User is anonymous" if input.user_id == "anonymous"

At first glance, it might seem obvious that evaluating the rule should add a violation to the set of messages if the user_id provided in input is equal to "anonymous". But what happens if there is no user_id provided at all? Evaluation will stop when encountering undefined, and the comparison will never be invoked, leading to nothing being added to the deny set — the rule allows someone without a user_id. We could of course add another rule, checking only for its presence:

deny contains "User ID missing from input" if not input.user_id

This is nice in that we'll get an even more granular message returned to the caller, but quickly becomes tedious when working with a large set of input data. To deal with this, a helper rule using negation may be used.

Prefer

authorized := count(deny) == 0

deny contains "User is anonymous" if not authenticated_user

authenticated_user if input.user_id != "anonymous"

In the above case, the authenticated_user rule will fail both in the the undefined case, and if defined but equal to "anonymous". Since we negate the result of the helper rule in the deny rule, we'll have both cases covered.

Related Resources

• OPA AWS CloudFormation Hook Tutorial

Consider partial helper rules over comprehensions in rule bodies

While comprehensions inside of rule bodies allows for compact rules, these are often harder to debug, and can't easily be reused by other rules. Partial rules may be referenced by any other rule, and more importantly, by you! Having many smaller, composable rules, is often key to quickly identifying where things fail, as each rule may be queried individually.

Avoid

allow if {
    input.request.method in {"GET", "HEAD"}
    input.request.path[0] == "credit_reports"
    input.user.name in {username |
        # These should not count as MFA
        insecure_methods := {"email"}

        some user in data.users
        mfa_methods := {method | some method in user.authentication.methods} - insecure_methods

        count(mfa_methods) > 1
        username := user.name
    }
}

Prefer

allow if {
    input.request.method in {"GET", "HEAD"}
    input.request.path[0] == "credit_reports"
    input.user.name in mfa_authenticated_users
}

mfa_authenticated_users contains username if {
    # These should not count as MFA
    insecure_methods := {"email"}

    some user in data.users
    mfa_methods := {method | some method in user.authentication.methods} - insecure_methods

    count(mfa_methods) > 1
    username := user.name
}

Notes / Exceptions

Does not apply if ordering is of importance, or duplicate values should be allowed. For those cases, use array comprehensions.

Avoid prefixing rules and functions with get_ or list_

Since Rego evaluation is generally free of side effects, any rule or function is essentially a "getter". Adding a get_ prefix to a rule or function (like get_resources) thus adds little of value compared to just naming it resources. Additionally, the type and return value of the rule should serve to tell whether a rule might return a single value (i.e. a complete rule) or a collection (a partial rule).

Avoid

get_first_name(user) := split(user.name, " ")[0]

# Partial rule, so a set of users is to be expected
list_developers contains user if {
    some user in data.application.users
    user.type == "developer"
}

Prefer

# "get" is implied
first_name(user) := split(user.name, " ")[0]

# Partial rule, so a set of users is to be expected
list_developers contains user if {
    some user in data.application.users
    user.type == "developer"
}

Notes / Exceptions

Using is_, or has_ for boolean helper functions, like is_admin(user) may be easier to comprehend than admin(user).

Variables and Data Types

Use in to check for membership

Using in for membership checks clearly communicates intent, and is less prone to errors. This is especially true when checking if something is not part of a collection.

Avoid

# "Old" way of checking for membership - iteration + comparison
allow {
    "admin" == input.user.roles[_]
}

Prefer

allow if "admin" in input.user.roles

Avoid

deny contains "Only admin allowed" if not user_is_admin

user_is_admin if {
    "admin" == input.user.roles[_]
}

Prefer

deny contains "Only admin allowed" if not "admin" in input.user.roles

Prefer some .. in for iteration

Using the some .. in construct for iteration removes ambiguity around iteration vs. membership checks, and is generally more pleasant to read.

Avoid

my_rule if {
    # Are we iterating users over a partial "other_rule" here,
    # or checking if the set contains a user defined elsewhere?
    other_rule[user]
}

While this could be alleviated by declaring some user before the iteration, we can't take that consideration for granted when reading code from someone else.

Avoid

# Iterating over array
internal_hosts contains hostname if {
    host := data.network.hosts[_]
    host.internal == true
    hostname := host.name
}

# Iterating over object
public_endpoints contains endpoint if {
    some endpoint
    attributes := endpoints[endpoint]
    attributes.public
}

Prefer

internal_hosts contains hostname if {
    some host in data.network.hosts
    host.internal == true
    hostname := host.name
}

# Iterating over object
public_endpoints contains endpoint if {
    some endpoint, attributes in endpoints
    attributes.public
}

Notes / Exceptions

Using the "old" style of iteration may still be preferable when iterating over deeply nested structures.

# Building a list of all hostnames from a deeply nested structure

all_hostnames := [hostname | hostname := data.regions[_].networks[_].servers[_].hostname]

# ⬆️ is likely preferable over ⬇️

all_hostnames := [hostname |
    some region in data.regions
    some network in region
    some server in network
    hostname := server.hostname
]

Use every to express FOR ALL

The every keyword makes it trivial to describe "for all" type expressions, which previously required the use of helper rules, or comparing counts of items in the original collection against a filtered one produced by a comprehension.

Avoid

# Negate result of _any_ match
allow if not any_old_registry

any_old_registry if {
    some container in input.request.object.spec.containers
    startswith(container.image, "old.docker.registry/")
}

Prefer

allow if {
    every container in input.request.object.spec.containers {
        not startswith(container.image, "old.docker.registry/")
    }
}

Avoid

words := ["always", "arbitrary", "air", "brand", "asphalt"]

all_starts_with_a if {
    starts_with_a := [word |
        some word in words
        startswith(word, "a")
    ]
    count(starts_with_a) == count(words)
}

Prefer

words := ["always", "arbitrary", "air", "brand", "asphalt"]

all_starts_with_a if {
    every word in words {
        startswith(word, "a")
    }
}

Notes / Exceptions

Older versions of OPA used the all built-in function to check that all elements of an array had the value true. This function has been deprecated for a long time, and will eventually be removed.

Don't use unification operator for assignment or comparison

The unification operator (=) allows you to combine assignment and comparison. While this is useful in a few specific cases (see "Notes / Exceptions" below), using the assignment operator (:=) for assignment, and the comparison operator (==) for comparison, is almost always preferable. Separating assignment from comparison clearly demonstrates intent, and removes the ambiguity around scope associated with unification.

Avoid

# Top level assignment using unification operator
roles = input.user.roles

allow if {
    # Unification operator - used for assignment to `username` variable or for
    # comparing to a `username` variable or rule defined elsewhere? Who knows.
    username = input.user.name

    # ...
}

allow if {
    # Unification operator used for comparison
    input.request.method = "GET"
}

allow if {
    some user
    input.request.path = ["users", user]
    input.request.user == user
}

Prefer

# Top level assignment using assignment operator
roles := input.user.roles

allow if {
    # Assignment operator used for assignment - no ambiguity around
    # intent, or variable scope
    username := input.user.name

    # ... do something with username
}

allow if {
    # Comparison operator used for comparison
    input.request.method == "GET"
}

allow if {
    input.request.path == ["users", input.request.user]
}

Notes / Exceptions

Unification was used extensively in older versions of OPA, and following that, in the policy examples provided in the OPA documentation, blogs, and elsewhere. With the assignment and comparison operators now available for use in any context, there are generally few reasons to use the unification operator in modern Rego.

One notable exception is when matching for example, the path of a request (as presented in array form), where you'll want to do both comparison and assignment to variables from the path components:

# Using unification - compact but clear
router {
    some user_id, podcast_id
    ["users", user_id, "podcasts", podcast_id] = input.request.path

    # .. do something with user_id, podcast_id
}

# Using comparison + assignment - arguably messier
router {
    input.request_path[0] == "users"
    input.request_path[2] == "podcasts"

    user_id := input.request_path[1]
    podcast_id := input.request_path[3]

    # .. do something with user_id, podcast_id
}

Related Resources

• Strict-mode to phase-out the "single =" operator
• OPA fmt 2.0

Don't use undeclared variables

Using undeclared variables (i.e. not declared using some or :=) makes it harder to understand what's going on in a rule, and introduces ambiguities around scope.

Avoid

messages contains message if {
    message := input.topics[topic].body
}

Prefer

messages contains message if {
    some topic
    message := input.topics[topic].body
}

# Alternatively
messages contains message if {
    some topic in input.topics
    message := topic.body
}

# or

messages contains message if {
    message := input.topics[_].body
}

Prefer sets over arrays (where applicable)

For any unordered sequence of unique values, prefer to use sets over arrays.

This is almost always the case for common policy data like roles and permissions. For any applicable sequence of values, sets have the following benefits over arrays:

• Clearly communicate uniqueness and non-ordered characteristics
• Performance: set lookups are O(1) while array lookups are O(n)
• Powerful set operations available

Avoid

required_roles := ["accountant", "reports-writer"]
provided_roles := [role | some role in input.user.roles]

allow if {
    every required_role in required_roles {
        required_role in provided_roles
    }
}

Prefer

required_roles := {"accountant", "reports-writer"}
provided_roles := {role | some role in input.user.roles}

allow if {
    every required_role in required_roles {
        required_role in provided_roles
    }
}

Prefer

# Alternatively, use set intersection
allow if {
    required_roles & provided_roles == required_roles
}

Related Resources

• Five things you didn't know about OPA.

Functions

Prefer using arguments over input and data

What separates functions from rules is that they accept arguments. While a function too may reference anything from input and data, these references create dependencies that aren't obvious simply by checking the function signature, and it makes it harder to reuse that function in other contexts. Additionally, functions that only depend on their arguments are easier to test standalone.

Avoid

# Depends on both `input` and `data`
is_preferred_login_method(method) if {
    preferred_login_methods := {login_method |
        some login_method in data.authentication.all_login_methods
        login_method in input.user.login_methods
    }
    method in preferred_login_methods
}

Prefer

# Depends only on function arguments
is_preferred_login_method(method, user, all_login_methods) if {
    preferred_login_methods := {login_method |
        some login_method in all_login_methods
        login_method in user.login_methods
    }
    method in preferred_login_methods
}

Avoid using the last argument for the return value

Older Rego policies sometimes contain an unusual way to declare where the return value of a function call should be stored — the last argument of the function. True to it's Datalog roots, return values may be stored either using assignment (i.e. :=) or by appending a variable name to the argument list of a function. These two expressions are thus equivalent:

Avoid

first_a := i if {
    indexof("answer", "a", i)
}

Prefer

first_a := i if {
    i := indexof("answer", "a")
}

While the first form is valid, it is almost guaranteed to confuse developers coming from the most common programming languages. Again, optimize for readability!

Regex

Use raw strings for regex patterns

Raw strings are interpreted literally, allowing you to avoid having to escape special characters like \ in your regex patterns.

Avoid

all_digits if {
    regex.match("[\\d]+", "12345")
}

Prefer

all_digits if {
    regex.match(`[\d]+`, "12345")
}

Imports

Use explicit imports for future keywords

In order to evolve the Rego language without breaking existing policies, many new features require importing "future" keywords, like contains, every, if and in. While it might seem convenient to use the "catch-all" form of import future.keywords to import all of the future keywords, this construct risks breaking your policies when new keywords are introduced, and their names happen to collide with names you've used for variables or rules.

Avoid

import future.keywords

severe_violations contains violation if {
    some violation in input.violations
    violation.severity > 5
}

Prefer

import future.keywords.contains
import future.keywords.if
import future.keywords.in

severe_violations contains violation if {
    some violation in input.violations
    violation.severity > 5
}

Tip: Importing the every keyword implicitly imports in as well, as it is required by the every construct. Leaving out the import of in when every is imported is considered okay.

Prefer importing modules over rules and functions

Importing modules rather than specific rules and functions allows you to reference them by the module name, making it obvious where the rule or function was declared. Additionally, well-named packages help provide context to assertions.

Avoid

import data.user.is_admin

allow if is_admin

Prefer

import data.user

allow if user.is_admin

Avoid importing input

While importing attributes from the global input variable might eliminate some levels of nesting, it makes the origin of the attribute(s) less apparent. Clearly differentiating input and data from values, functions, and rules defined inside of the same module helps in making things obvious, and few things beat obviousness!

Avoid

import input.request.context.user

# ... many lines of code later

fin_dept if {
    # where does "user" come from?
    contains(user.department, "finance")
}

Prefer

fin_dept if {
    contains(input.request.context.user.department, "finance")
}

Prefer

fin_dept if {
    # Alternatively, assign an intermediate variable close to where it's referenced
    user := input.request.context.user
    contains(user.department, "finance")
}

Notes / Exceptions

In some contexts, the source of data is obvious even when imported and/or renamed. A common practice is to rename input in Terraform policies for example, either via import or a new top-level variable.

import input as tfplan

violations contains message if {
    # still obvious where "tfplan" comes from, perhaps even more so — this is generally acceptable
    some change in tfplan.resource_changes
    # ...
}

---

Contributing

This document is meant to reflect the style preferences and best practices as compiled by the OPA community. As such, we welcome contributions from any of its members. Since most of the topics in a guide like this are likely subject to discussion, please open an issue, and allow some time for people to comment, before opening a PR.

If you'd like to add or remove items for your own company, team or project, forking this repo is highly encouraged!