"denied":          "Denied is optional. True if the action would be denied, otherwise false. If both allowed is false and denied is false, then the authorizer has no opinion on whether to authorize the action. Denied may not be true if Allowed is true.",
	"reason":          "Reason is optional.  It indicates why a request was allowed or denied.",

	Allowed bool `json:"allowed" protobuf:"varint,1,opt,name=allowed"`
	// Denied is optional. True if the action would be denied, otherwise
	// false. If both allowed is false and denied is false, then the
	// authorizer has no opinion on whether to authorize the action. Denied
	// may not be true if Allowed is true.
	// +optional
	Denied bool `json:"denied,omitempty" protobuf:"varint,4,opt,name=denied"`

	Allowed bool `json:"allowed" protobuf:"varint,1,opt,name=allowed"`
	// Denied is optional. True if the action would be denied, otherwise
	// false. If both allowed is false and denied is false, then the
	// authorizer has no opinion on whether to authorize the action. Denied
	// may not be true if Allowed is true.
	// +optional
	Denied bool `json:"denied,omitempty" protobuf:"varint,4,opt,name=denied"`

//
// allowed
//
// Returns true if the authorizer's decision for the check is "allow".  Note that if the authorizer's decision is
// "no opinion", that the 'allowed' function will return false.
//
//	<Decision>.allowed() <bool>
//
// Examples:
//

// TODO: the current error handling is, in my opinion, the least opinionated.
// Other strategies are also viable, though:
// Option 1) Return an empty string in case of error, but allow the user to
//    specify explicitly which errors to ignore.
// Option 2) Return the partially evaluated string if it is itself a valid
//    string, otherwise return the empty string in case of error.
// Option 3) Option 1 and 2.

// TODO: the current error handling is, in my opinion, the least opinionated.
// Other strategies are also viable, though:
// Option 1) Return an empty string in case of error, but allow the user to
//    specify explicitly which errors to ignore.
// Option 2) Return the partially evaluated string if it is itself a valid
//    string, otherwise return the empty string in case of error.
// Option 3) Option 1 and 2.

        run ':a:checkDebug'

        then:
        result.assertTasksExecuted(':b:fooJar', ':a:checkDebug')
    }

    def "producer can apply additional compatibility rules when consumer does not have an opinion for attribute known to both"() {
        given:
        createDirs("a", "b")
        file('settings.gradle') << "include 'a', 'b'"
        buildFile << """
            $typeDefs

Unfortunately they will have to use `exclude` if they happen to disagree with one of the forced versions.
Instead, if your reusable software component has a strong opinion on some third party dependency versions, consider using a <<rich_versions.adoc#sec:strict-version,rich version declaration>> with a `strictly`.
====

[[sub:platforms-vs-catalog]]
== Should I use a platform or a catalog?

		if inPod.ResourceVersion == "" || inPod.ResourceVersion == "0" {
			inPod.ResourceVersion = p.updatePod.ResourceVersion
		}
		if inPod.ResourceVersion != p.updatePod.ResourceVersion {
			// If the patch didn't have an opinion on the resource version, retry like GuaranteedUpdate does
			if inPod.ResourceVersion == currentResourceVersion {
				continue
			}
			// If the patch changed the resource version and it mismatches, conflict

----

The drawback to this approach is that it automatically forces the project to apply the Java plugin, imposing a strong opinion on it (i.e., reducing flexibility and generality).
In practice, the project applying the plugin might not even deal with Java code.