rapidfsub
policies do
policy action_type(:read) do
forbid_if expr(type(true, :boolean))
authorize_if always()
end
end
I think forbid_if expr(type(true, :boolean)) is an inline filter policy,
so Ash.read!(ResourceModule) should return [],
but it raises an error.
** (Ash.Error.Forbidden) Forbidden Error
* forbidden
(elixir 1.17.0) lib/process.ex:864: Process.info/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/error/forbidden/policy.ex:9: Ash.Error.Forbidden.Policy."exception (overridable 2)"/1
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/error/forbidden/policy.ex:28: Ash.Error.Forbidden.Policy.exception/1
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/policy/authorizer/authorizer.ex:1529: Ash.Policy.Authorizer.strict_check_result/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/policy/authorizer/authorizer.ex:617: Ash.Policy.Authorizer.strict_check/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/can.ex:412: anonymous fn/6 in Ash.Can.run_check/4
(elixir 1.17.0) lib/enum.ex:4858: Enumerable.List.reduce/3
(elixir 1.17.0) lib/enum.ex:2585: Enum.reduce_while/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/can.ex:409: Ash.Can.run_check/4
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/can.ex:118: Ash.Can.can/4
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash.ex:1283: Ash.can/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:1163: Ash.Actions.Read.authorize_query/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:365: Ash.Actions.Read.do_read/4
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:249: Ash.Actions.Read.do_run/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:66: anonymous fn/3 in Ash.Actions.Read.run/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:65: Ash.Actions.Read.run/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash.ex:1887: Ash.read/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash.ex:1846: Ash.read!/2
(elixir 1.17.0) src/elixir.erl:386: :elixir.eval_external_handler/3
(stdlib 6.0) erl_eval.erl:904: :erl_eval.do_apply/7
(elixir 1.17.0) lib/process.ex:864: Process.info/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/error/forbidden.ex:3: Ash.Error.Forbidden.exception/1
(ash 3.4.1) /Users/r4f3works/fireworks/r3world/deps/splode/lib/splode.ex:211: Ash.Error.to_class/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/error/error.ex:66: Ash.Error.to_error_class/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:340: anonymous fn/3 in Ash.Actions.Read.do_run/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:265: Ash.Actions.Read.do_run/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:66: anonymous fn/3 in Ash.Actions.Read.run/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash/actions/read/read.ex:65: Ash.Actions.Read.run/3
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash.ex:1887: Ash.read/2
(ash 3.4.1) lib/ash.ex:1846: Ash.read!/2
iex:6: (file)
Is this an intended behavior?
Trending in Questions
I having some trouble figuring out if I have set myself too strict of standards for my production server. Currently I can handle 75% of r...
New
Documentation
While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
Hello,
I’m trying to build a basic Phoenix web-app, and I’d like to use Tailwind.
However, when I launch mix phx.server, I get an error...
New
Hi everyone,
I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding.
I sta...
New
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
I’m working on a small exercise involving update_in/3, and I came up with this solution:
data = %{
name: "Periodic Table",
category:...
New
I’ve got trouble wrapping my head around the order in which functions are called in this snippet (from Phoenix’s authentication):
toke...
New
Other Trending Topics
Edit: 2026 May 15 - This post is archived.
Mob is alive!!
Main docs: mob v0.7.11 — Documentation
A bit of explanation for the slightly c...
New
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM.
Welcome Cure.
It has literally three kille...
New
Hobbes is a low-level distributed database for the Elixir programming language.
Hobbes provides a simple, safe, and scalable storage lay...
New
Hi everyone!
The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available!
We’ve published a press release detai...
New
A little off-topic, but I feel like people here have a good head on their shoulders.
I used to be quite good at making software. Was luc...
New
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ai
- #ecto-query
- #elixirconf-us
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #elixirconf-eu
- #api
- #forms
- #metaprogramming
- #hex










Showing Posts 1 to 10- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
zachdaniel
i.e
forbid_if trueis immediately incorrect, no queries must be made.rapidfsub
But I think the behavior of FilterPolicy should be predictable.
In some cases,
raise errorand in other cases,query and filterconfuses me.If I write a complex inline FilterPolicy,
something like
expr(<statically determinable clause> and <dynamically determinable clause> and ...)then this could be so hard to predict the result. @zachdaniel
zachdaniel
…yes. You’re right. I’ll look into it.
zachdaniel
@rapidfsub I’ve pushed something up to main that should make this consistent with the only exception of
which will still be a static failure.
zachdaniel
Okay, so this is actually going to have to be opt-in behavior so as to be backwards compatible. On the new version of Ash, you’d say:
rapidfsub
In the future (e.g. ash 4.0), this would be a default behaviour?
zachdaniel
Yes, it would be
rapidfsub
Sorry for late feedback.
I was focused on other things.
Now I started to use
config :ash, policies: [no_filter_static_forbidden_reads?: false].And I found SimpleCheck also does not raise error in read action.
But I think only FilterCheck should not raise error,
and SimpleCheck “should” raise error.
If not, we can’t forbid read actions “at all”.
zachdaniel
You can forbid read actions, the way you do it is by marking a policy as
access_type :strictrapidfsub
Thanks. I should have read the updated policy docs.