mutagen VS OPA (Open Policy Agent)

There are two testing techniques you didn't mention: Snapshot tests (which are greatly simplified using the insta crate and mutation testing (which can be done on nightly with my mutagen crate.

How does this compare to mutagen?

Do you mean as part of build.rs? Yes, that's certainly doable, and has been done in the past. You can use env!("OUT_DIR") for that. Examples you may want to refer to include my mutagen crate and criterion.

Would be great if this could include mutation testing.

I wrote a good number of macros though, both macro_rules! and various proc_macros. The latest iteration of overflower has both, for example. mutagen is a mutation testing tool built as a proc macro, and it's helper library has a bunch of macros, too. compact_arena uses macros to tie unique lifetime tags to arenas.

Also there are far more mutation testing frameworks. I maintain the rust-based mutagen one. There are also LLVM-based ones (etc. mull) that can cover multiple languages (but may yield mutations not expressible in your preferred one).

Cargo (and Rust) makes it so easy to write test cases that you should really use it to find these kinds of bugs. And there are other good test crates available: mutagen, quickcheck, etc.

I had a student completely reachitecture my mutagen tool, and saw some working on various clippy contributions.

How can we handle this? Are there any mechanisms to prevent or at least to some extent safeguard this kind of issues without falling back to a manual workflow? There is. One huge advantage of sticking to (de-facto) standards like Terraform is that first we are probably not the first ones to come up with this question and second there is a huge ecosystem around Terraform that might help us with such challenges. And for this specific scenario the solution is the Open Policy Agent. Let us take a closer look how the solution could look like.

A popular Policy-as-Code tool for Terraform is OPA, everyone's favorite versatile open-source policy engine that enforces security and compliance policies across your cloud-native stack, making it easier to manage and maintain consistent policy enforcement in complex, multi-service environments.

Harness Policy As Code uses Open Policy Agent (OPA) as the central service to store and enforce policies for the different entities and processes across the Harness platform. In this section, you will define a policy that will deny a pipeline execution if there is no approval step defined in a deployment stage.

OPA: While OPA is an open-source, general-purpose policy engine capable of enforcing unified and context-aware policies throughout the stack, it can also accept and output data in formats such as JSON, effectively functioning as a tool for generating or modifying configurations. Although it does not provide out-of-the-box schema definition support, it allows the integration of JsonSchema definitions.

In essence, container image signing involves adding a digital stamp to an image, affirming its authenticity. This digital assurance guarantees that the image is unchanged from creation to deployment. In this blog, I'll explain how to sign container images for Kubernetes using Cosign and the Open Policy Agent. I will also share a tutorial that demonstrates these concepts.

In this post we will explores two powerful solutions for addressing this issue: the Open Policy Language (OPA) and Google’s Zanzibar.

Rego is a declarative query language from the makers of the Open Policy Agent (OPA) framework. The Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) accepted OPA as an incubation-level hosted project in April 2019, and OPA graduated from incubating status in 2021.

Now there are more subdivided practice: * Policy as Code: Sentinel, OPA * Database as Code: bytebase * AppConfiguration as Code: KusionStack, Acorn * ...... (Welcome to add more)