|
2 | 2 | sidebar_position: 4 |
3 | 3 | --- |
4 | 4 |
|
5 | | -# Field-Level Policies 🚧 |
| 5 | +import AvailableSince from '../../_components/AvailableSince'; |
| 6 | +import PreviewFeature from '../../_components/PreviewFeature' |
6 | 7 |
|
7 | | -Coming soon. |
| 8 | +# Field-Level Policies |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +<AvailableSince version="v3.2.0" /> |
| 11 | +<PreviewFeature name="Field-level policy" /> |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +Field-level policies allow you to define access control rules at the individual field level within a model. This provides fine-grained control over who can read or write specific fields in your data models. To define field-level policies, use the `@allow` and `@deny` attributes directly on model fields (note the single `@`). |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +```zmodel |
| 16 | +model User { |
| 17 | + id Int @id |
| 18 | +
|
| 19 | + // email can be updated only by the user themselves |
| 20 | + email String @allow('update', auth() == this) |
| 21 | +
|
| 22 | + // name cannot be read by anonymous users |
| 23 | + name String @deny('read', auth() == null) |
| 24 | +} |
| 25 | +``` |
| 26 | + |
| 27 | +Field-level policies are similar to model-level ones, with the following key restrictions: |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | +- Only "read" and "update" operations are supported. You can use "all" to denote both. |
| 30 | +- They cannot be defined on relation fields or computed fields. |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +## Read Behavior |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +When reading a row, fields that violates "read" policies will be nullified in the result. Conceptually, the following form of SQL is generated to guard the fields: |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +```sql |
| 37 | +SELECT |
| 38 | + CASE WHEN <read_policy_for_field_1> THEN field_1 ELSE NULL END AS field_1, |
| 39 | + ... |
| 40 | +FROM table |
| 41 | +WHERE <model_level_policies> and <other_conditions>; |
| 42 | +``` |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | +If read policies are defined on foreign key fields, they will also control the readability of the corresponding relations. |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +:::info |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +Setting unreadable fields null brings a caveat that you cannot tell whether a field is actually `NULL` in the database or just unreadable due to access control. So why don't we instead omit the fields from the result? |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +The concern is that a non-readable field should still have a valid SQL value, because it can be used to compute other data (computed columns, joins, etc.). With `null` values, the computation remain valid in SQL (e.g., `NULL + 1` results in `NULL`), so the fields remain usable everywhere even though their actual values cannot be seen. |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +::: |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +## Update Behavior |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +When updating data, if an update involves setting fields that violate "update" policies, the entire update operation will be rejected with an `ORMError` with `reason` set to `REJECTED_BY_POLICY`. |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +## Samples |
| 59 | + |
| 60 | +Coming soon! |
0 commit comments