The servlets, at this point now that we're off GAE, are only used for
the test server (and, indirectly, in one BSA test). Instead of having
them all remain separate, we can unify them in one test servlet that
lives in the test/ folder.
This removes one avenue of potential confusion w/r/t how request routing
actually works and where we would want to add new routing.
With GKE, we don't need the individual servlets because the services
aren't partitioned out the same way they were in GAE.
We keep FrontendServlet and BackendServlet around for now as they serve
as the backbone for the local RegistryTestServer (for testing things
like the console).
did some cursory tests on alpha and things seem to be unaffected -- I
was able to curl RDAP (pubapi) and create domains
We no longer need this now that no contacts can be applied to any domains at all.
A follow-up PR in subsequent weeks will delete the column from the DB schema.
BUG= http://b/448619572
* Support Fee Extension standard in rfc 8748
Adding support to the final version of RFC 8748.
Compared with draft-0.12, the only meaningful change is in the namespace.
The rest is either schema-tightening that reflects actual usage, or
optional server-side features that we do not support.
We reuse draft-0.12 tests, only changing namespace uris in the input and
output files for the new version.
* Addressing reviews
This is steps one and two of b/454947209
We already haven't been serving WHOIS for a while, so there's no point
in keeping the old code around. This can simplify some code paths in the
future (like, certain foreign-key-loads that are only used in WHOIS
queries).
This implements the first part of Minimum Data Set phase 3, wherein we delete
all contact data. This action is necessary to leave a permanent record on the
domain (in the form of a domain history entry) documenting when the contacts
were removed by the administrative user.
Then, after this has finished removing all contact assocations, we can simply
empty out or drop the Contact/ContactHistory tables and associated join tables.
Note: this still includes "contacts" for registrars, which are actually
a different concept that we call RegistrarPoc. That's different from
"Contact" objects, e.g. registrant.
This works fairly similarly to the registry lock request and
verification mechanism. The request action generates a UUI which is
emailed (in link form) to the user in question. The frontend will send a
request to the verify action with the UUID and hopefully the action
should be finalized.
EPP password requests can be sent by anyone with edit-registrar
permissions and must be approved by an admin POC email.
Registry lock password resets can only be sent by primary contacts, and
are verified/performed by the user in question.
This prohibits all contact data on create and update EPP flows for both domain
and contact flows. It also refactors how default values on FeatureFlags work, as
it's safer to specify a single default on the flag itself rather than have to
specify it independently at a number of callsites (and potentially end up having
an inconsistent value). Domain updates on existing domains that still have
contact data will fail unless all contact data is removed, as a forcing function
to require registrars to rectify the situation prior to being able to do any
other kind of domain changes.
Contact-related flows that are still allowed after this point: Updating a domain
to remove all contacts from it, and deleting a contact object.
This corresponds to the Feb 2024 response profile section 1.2 and
implementation guide 1.3 respectively, now that we comply (or are, at
least closer to complying), with the Feb 2024 versions.
This should probably depend on https://github.com/google/nomulus/pull/2771
because that includes a small change included in the Feb 2024 version
This also updates the documentation to reference the proper areas of the
specifications.
From the response profile:
2.4.6. Registrar URL - The entity with the registrar role in the RDAP response
MUST contain a links member [RFC9083]. The links object MUST contain
the elements: value, identical to the the RDAP Base URL for the
Registrar as provided in the IANA “Registrar IDs” registry (i.e.,
https://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids); rel:about, and href
containing the Registrar URL. Note: in cases where the Registry Operator
acts as sponsoring Registrar (e.g., IANA Registrar ID 9999), the href shall
contain a URL from the Registry.
This implements two type of changes:
1. changing the link type for things like the terms of service
2. adding the request URL to each and every link with the "value" field.
This is a bit tricky to implement because the links are generated in
various places, but we can implement it by adding it to the results
after generation.
See b/418782147 for more information
We're changing the way that allocation tokens work in suboptimal (i.e. incorrect) situations in the domain check, creation, and renewal process. Currently, if a token is not applicable, in any way, to any of the operations (including when a check has multiple operations requested) we return some variation of "Allocation token not valid" for all of those options. We wish to allow for a more lenient process, where if a token is "not applicable" instead of "invalid", we just pass through that part of the request as if the token were not there.
Types of errors that will remain catastrophic, where we'll basically return a token error immediately in all cases:
- nonexistent or null token
- token is assigned to a particular domain and the request isn't for that domain
- token is not valid for this registrar
- token is a single-use token that has already been redeemed
- token has a promotional schedule and it's no longer valid
Types of errors that will now be a silent pass-through, as if the user did not issue a token:
- token is not allowed for this TLD
- token has a discount, is not valid for premium names, and the domain name is premium
- token does not allow the provided EPP action
Currently, the last three types of errors cause that generic "token invalid" message but in the future, we'll pass the requests through as if the user did not pass in a token. This does allow for a default token to apply to these requests if available, meaning that it's possible that a single DomainCheckFlow with multiple check requests could use the provided token for some check(s), and a default token for others.
The flip side of this is that if the user passes in a catastrophically invalid token (the first five error messages above), we will return that result to any/all checks that they request, even if there are other issues with that request (e.g. the domain is reserved or already registered).
See b/315504612 for more details and background
We no longer need to union GKE+GAE logs since we've moved all production
traffic to GKE only.
For testing, I copied the affected *_test.sql files to Bigquery, removed
all the "-alpha" bits, and changed the dates to 20250301 and 20250331
and ran them to make sure they returned the expected data.
The SQL statement was incorrectly flooring to zero one layer too deep, which was
negating all negative transaction report rows (which occur most frequently when
a domain in the autorenew grace period is deleted). I've changed it so that it
now only floors to zero at the report level, which still solves the issue
reported in http://b/290228682 but whose original fix caused the issue
http://b/344645788
This bug was introduced in https://github.com/google/nomulus/pull/2074
I tested this by running the new query against the DB for 2024 Q4 using the
registrar that was having issues and confirmed that the total renewal numbers
for .app now match with the sum total of what we invoiced for the last three
months of 2024.
GKE logs are routed to a different dataset and the table is different.
The structs to look for are also different (jsonPayload vs textPayload
or protoPayload).
TESTED=Ran the resulting query in crash.
Instead of having to parse the protoPayload.line from the request logs,
we just want to inspect the textPayload from the app logs (stored in a
separate table). This applies to the EPP metrics from the activity
reporting and the attempted-adds column for the transaction reporting.
It's valid for the auth data to be null (although it only happens 10 times
across our entire registry), so the domain update flow should not fail out with
a NullPointerException when the existing state of the data is null and the
update isn't adding that data either.
BUG=http://b/359264787
gbrodmanandGitHub
Ben McIlwainandGitHub
Weimin YuandGitHub
Pavlo TkachandGitHub
Lai JiangandGitHub