Add support to negated paths definition in the variable containing paths to ignore on policies updates

[disaverio]

Fixes Issue

Closes #641

Changes proposed

• If !myFolder/subfolder/** is defined in the variable then all the contents of it should not be ignored, even if the path myFolder/** is defined to be ignored
• If the only path defined in the variable is a negated one (or more than one), eg !myFolder, then nothing is ignored: the default behavior still is "nothing is ignored, unless here explicitly defined"

Check List (Check all the applicable boxes)

• I sign off on contributing this submission to open-source
• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires changes to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• This PR does not contain plagiarized content.
• The title of my pull request is a short description of the requested changes.

Screenshots

Note to reviewers

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for opal-docs ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	605841f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/opal-docs/deploys/66dee9dca43eb30009e3b623
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-642--opal-docs.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[roekatz]

Hi @disaverio - looks great! and cool addition.
To be clear - a "path to not ignore" (e.g !somefolder) would always take precedence even if subpaths are explicitly being ignored.

That is I can't go with further iterations of inclusion-exclusion like in "ignore-me/**;!ignore-me/but-not-me;ignore-me/but-not-me/me-as-well"

I'm not saying this is a super important use case to support - but rather that the behavior in that case is not clear without looking at the code.
So I would consider maybe having the paths "not to ignore" on a different config var and make clear it has the last say.
Or if you don't like that suggestion - just add a short comment about it in the existing docs.

Thanks!

[disaverio]

Hi @disaverio - looks great! and cool addition. To be clear - a "path to not ignore" (e.g !somefolder) would always take precedence even if subpaths are explicitly being ignored.

Hi @roekatz, thanks for your review.

Yes, I confirm: a "path to not ignore" would always take precedence. It is also made explicit in the two tests i added: test_should_ignore_path_keeping_higher_priority_to_ones_defined_as_not_to_ignore_C and test_should_ignore_path_keeping_higher_priority_to_ones_defined_as_not_to_ignore_D.

I'm not saying this is a super important use case to support - but rather that the behavior in that case is not clear without looking at the code. So I would consider maybe having the paths "not to ignore" on a different config var and make clear it has the last say. Or if you don't like that suggestion - just add a short comment about it in the existing docs.

I will make it more clear by adding a more explicit, punctual description in the documentation. Still, if you prefer to use a dedicated config var, pls do tell me :)

Thanks!

[roekatz]

Amazing!
Will merge once I stabilize master tests :)

[roekatz]

Oh sorry - if you can just fix the pre-commit errors. (You can run it locally, install pre-commit (brew install pre-commit on Mac). Then within opal repo:

pre-commit install
pre-commit run --all-files

[disaverio]

files have been reformatted ✅

[roekatz]

@disaverio Great - Tests should now be fixed in master so if you can rebase we'll see we're green and have it merged.

[disaverio]

Hello @roekatz , the branch has been rebased. ty