gj

Interesting; if I ever get a free moment to mess around with TS, I'll look into this. Or if anyone else wants to put forward an explanation, that'd be awesome!...

Sure, what's your proposed solution? Unfortunately for us, the author of that library stopped development on the `uws` package and is now focused on the framework referenced in the warning...

Hey @kristianmandrup ! I haven't done much in TS, but if you (or anyone else) wants to contribute some type defs I'd love the PR!

I'm all for adding documentation for alternatives, but just as a note the steps in #940 were done using the free "evaluation" copy of Fusion 🙂

It's possible to continue cycling the Fusion trial in perpetuity, but it's certainly not an ideal setup. I think this issue is really valuable and definitely didn't mean to suggest...

Hi @kkirsche, it's an API that hasn't gotten a lot of love recently. [This](https://github.com/osohq/oso-graphene-sqlalchemy-app/blob/3e2df59e979210acef71189aba4e979ae8811185/app/models.py#L9-L13) is the only instance I can find across our examples, but it's using a _very_ old...

Yeah definitely not taken as a knock @kkirsche — it's valid, appreciated feedback

I would expect us to hit this: https://github.com/osohq/oso/blob/49214bfe2cdad1e592b37b0b54a7f37874fdb30e/polar-core/src/kb.rs#L590-L596 (The `RESOURCE_UNION_NAME` constant is `"Resource"`.)

@jlk yeah that could definitely be it. Either way, we should shoot for parity between the class names we accept via class registration & policy loading APIs

We might be able to take some inspiration from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75991.