Skip to content

Fix bug in updating registrar display name canonicalization#2957

Merged
CydeWeys merged 1 commit intogoogle:masterfrom
CydeWeys:registrar-canonicalization
Feb 13, 2026
Merged

Fix bug in updating registrar display name canonicalization#2957
CydeWeys merged 1 commit intogoogle:masterfrom
CydeWeys:registrar-canonicalization

Conversation

@CydeWeys
Copy link
Member

@CydeWeys CydeWeys commented Feb 13, 2026

We have a restriction in our system that registrar display names be unique (as the display name is how registrars are queried through RDAP). And, the uniqueness constraint is enforced on the canonicalized version of the display name (with spaces and non alphanumeric characters removed). However, in the check enforcing this uniqueness, we were incorrectly checking against the existing saved entity of the same registrar, meaning that you couldn't update the display name of a single registrar to a new value that canonicalized the same (you would instead have to rename it to something else first that doesn't canonicalize the same, and then afterwards to the new desired value).

That didn't make sense, so now we exclude the existing registrar entity from consideration when checking if there are conflicts.


This change is Reviewable

We have a restriction in our system that registrar display names be unique (as
the display name is how registrars are queried through RDAP). And, the
uniqueness constraint is enforced on the canonicalized version of the display
name (with spaces and non alphanumeric characters removed). However, in the
check enforcing this uniqueness, we were incorrectly checking against the
existing saved entity of the same registrar, meaning that you couldn't update
the display name of a single registrar to a new value that canonicalized the
same (you would instead have to rename it to something else first that doesn't
canonicalize the same, and then afterwards to the new desired value).

That didn't make sense, so now we exclude the existing registrar entity from
consideration when checking if there are conflicts.
@CydeWeys CydeWeys requested a review from njshah301 February 13, 2026 18:22
@CydeWeys CydeWeys enabled auto-merge February 13, 2026 18:22
Copy link
Collaborator

@njshah301 njshah301 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:lgtm:

@njshah301 made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, all discussions resolved.

@CydeWeys CydeWeys added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 13, 2026
Merged via the queue into google:master with commit 763630b Feb 13, 2026
9 of 10 checks passed
@CydeWeys CydeWeys deleted the registrar-canonicalization branch February 13, 2026 20:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants