Emit and create contract for FQDN #4317

samaradel · 2025-07-29T13:42:01Z

Description

FQDN gateways will create name contracts using the workload name (which is alphanumeric) instead of the FQDN (which contains invalid characters)

Changes

Related Issues

🐞 [Bug]: fqdn gw workload doesn't create a name contract #3391

Tested Scenarios

Deploy FQDN and check the FQDN contract if it existed

Documentation PR

For UI changes, Please provide the Documentation PR on info_grid

To consider

Preliminary Checks:

Preliminary Checks
- Does it completely address the issue linked?
- What about edge cases?
- Does it meet the specified acceptance criteria?
- Are there any unintended side effects?
- Does the PR adhere to the team's coding conventions, style guides, and best practices?
- Does it integrate well with existing features?
- Does it impact the overall performance of the application?
- Are there any bottlenecks or slowdowns?
- Has it been optimized for efficiency?
- Has it been adequately tested with unit, integration, and end-to-end tests?
- Are there any known defects or issues?
- Is the code well-documented?
- Are changes to documentation reflected in the code?

UI Checks:

UI Checks
- If a UI design is provided/ does it follow it?
- Does every button work?
- Is the data displayed logical? Is it what you expected?
- Does every validation work?
- Does this interface feel intuitive?
- What about slow network? Offline?
- What if the gridproxy/graphql/chain is failing?
- What would a first time user have a hard time navigating here?

Code Quality Checks:

Code Quality Checks
- Code formatted/linted? Are there unused imports? .. etc
- Is there redundant/repeated code?
- Are there conditionals that are always true or always false?
- Can we write this more concisely?
- Can we reuse this code? If yes, where?
- Will the changes be easy to maintain and update in the future?
- Can this code become too complex to understand for other devs?
- Can this code cause future integration problems?

Testing Checklist

Does it Meet the specified acceptance criteria.
Test if changes can affect any other functionality.
Tested with unit, integration, and end-to-end tests.
Tested the un-happy path and rollback scenarios.
Documentation updated to meet the latest changes.
Check automated tests working successfully with the changes.
Can be covered by automated tests.

General Checklist

0oM4R · 2025-08-04T12:41:53Z

packages/grid_client/src/high_level/twinDeploymentHandler.ts

@@ -492,6 +497,11 @@ class TwinDeploymentHandler {
          events.emit("logs", `Check the name contract for the workload with name: ${workload.name}`);
          const extrinsic = await this.createNameContract(workload.data["name"]);
          nameExtrinsics.push(extrinsic);
+        } else if (workload.type === WorkloadTypes.gatewayfqdnproxy) {
+          events.emit("logs", `Check the name contract for the FQDN workload with name: ${workload.name}`);
+          const contractName = workload.name.replace(/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/g, "").toLowerCase();


i suggest having this logic in a function and reusing it
to avoid code redundancy, andit will be easier to maintain

0oM4R · 2025-08-05T11:31:39Z

packages/grid_client/src/high_level/twinDeploymentHandler.ts

-        }
-      }
+      const gatewayResults = await this.handleGatewayWorkloads(twinDeployment.deployment.workloads, Operations.update);
+      nameExtrinsics = gatewayResults.nameExtrinsics;


We should push the result, not reassign it.
also we can have

const gatewayResults = await this.handleGatewayWorkloads(twinDeployment.deployment.workloads, twinDeployment.operation)

then insdie the operation check block:

else if (twinDeployment.operation === Operations.update) { ... nameExtrinsics.push(gatewayResults.nameExtrinsics) }

same on delete

AhmedHanafy725 · 2025-08-06T09:19:38Z

packages/grid_client/src/high_level/twinDeploymentHandler.ts

+        }
+      } else if (workload.type === WorkloadTypes.gatewayfqdnproxy) {
+        events.emit("logs", `Check the name contract for the FQDN workload with name: ${workload.name}`);
+        const contractName = workload.name.replace(/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/g, "").toLowerCase();


That's wrong. Why should the workload name be a unique identifier?! The workload name should be unique on the deployment object only. The unique identifier that should be on the name contract is the FQDN.

- Changing the reassignment operations to push operations

ramezsaeed · 2025-08-06T15:04:10Z

Test scenarios:

Workload name with alphanumeric characters
- Given a workload named testGateway42
- When a gateway is created
- Then the name contract should exactly match testGateway42
- And contain no special characters from the FQDN
FQDN with invalid characters
- Given a FQDN api.dev-company.org
- And a workload name apiDevCompany
- When an FQDN gateway is created
- Then the contract name should be apiDevCompany
- And not contain ., -, or any other invalid characters
Contract name uniqueness
- Given two gateways with same workload name which have speciall characters my_domain$1
- When both are deployed
- Then the system should reject the second contract
- Or append a unique suffix to prevent a name conflict

0oM4R

created a fqdn with fqdn kassem-test.elgrid.xyz
this created
gateway contract
details

{
  "version": 0,
  "twin_id": 800,
  "contract_id": 225610,
  "metadata": "",
  "description": "",
  "expiration": 0,
  "signature_requirement": {
    "requests": [
      {
        "twin_id": 800,
        "required": false,
        "weight": 1
      }
    ],
    "weight_required": 1,
    "signatures": [
      {
        "twin_id": 800,
        "signature": "1aa73655d7bc6fdb6e6488fbac42365d6cc9155af79abf668adc1d9d4ccffb529419859e37cd52375511959af546a2c471ec3bca8578a9776d37094ccdf5d881",
        "signature_type": "sr25519"
      }
    ],
    "signature_style": ""
  },
  "workloads": [
    {
      "version": 0,
      "name": "kassem8",
      "type": "gateway-fqdn-proxy",
      "data": {
        "__type": "gateway-fqdn-proxy",
        "fqdn": "kassem-test.elgrid.xyz",
        "tls_passthrough": false,
        "backends": [
          "http://10.20.2.2:80"
        ],
        "network": "nwcnn2q"
      },
      "metadata": "",
      "description": "",
      "result": {
        "created": 1754566136,
        "state": "ok",
        "message": "",
        "data": {}
      }
    }
  ]
}

and name contract

{
  "contract_id": 225611,
  "twin_id": 800,
  "type": "name",
  "state": "Created",
  "created_at": 1754566128,
  "details": {
    "nodeId": "-",
    "farm_id": "-"
  },
  "solutionName": "kassemtestelgridxyz",
  "solutionType": "-",
  "expiration": "-",
  "consumption": 0,
  "discountPackage": "None"
}

then tried to create new fqdn pointing to kassem.test.elgrid.xyz

0oM4R · 2025-08-07T10:47:14Z

packages/grid_client/src/high_level/twinDeploymentHandler.ts

+  }> {
+    const nameExtrinsics: ExtrinsicResult<Contract>[] = [];
+    const deletedExtrinsics: ExtrinsicResult<number>[] = [];
+


We can add a function here to reduce code redundancy, so you can define the contract name, based on workload type, then pass it to this function, whatever the operation is

const processContract = async (contractName: string) => { if (operation === Operations.delete) { const extrinsic = await this.deleteNameContract(contractName); if (extrinsic) deletedExtrinsics.push(extrinsic); } else { const extrinsic = await this.createNameContract(contractName); nameExtrinsics.push(extrinsic); } };

0oM4R · 2025-08-07T12:25:42Z

packages/grid_client/src/high_level/twinDeploymentHandler.ts

+        }
+      } else if (workload.type === WorkloadTypes.gatewayfqdnproxy) {
+        events.emit("logs", `Check the name contract for the FQDN workload with name: ${workload.name}`);
+        const contractName = workload.data["fqdn"].replace(/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/g, "").toLowerCase();


we should store the full fqdn name and do not remove anything

I think we shouldn't as tf chain doesn't support the characters like dots for example

If we can't store the FQDN as is, there will be many variations of domains that will end up with the same string after removing ., -, and _. So, no unique records, which is the target of having the name contract.

so, any recommended ideas?

Emit and create contract for FQDN

afa4a99

samaradel requested review from AhmedHanafy725, zaelgohary, MohamedElmdary, Mahmoud-Emad, amiraabouhadid, AlaaElattar and 0oM4R as code owners July 29, 2025 13:42

0oM4R reviewed Aug 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

samaradel marked this pull request as draft August 5, 2025 08:54

Create a function to handle the gateway workloads

5d3b1ab

samaradel marked this pull request as ready for review August 5, 2025 09:40

samaradel requested a review from 0oM4R August 5, 2025 09:40

0oM4R requested changes Aug 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

AhmedHanafy725 requested changes Aug 6, 2025

View reviewed changes

samaradel marked this pull request as draft August 6, 2025 12:42

- Use the actual name from workload data

3f6d803

- Changing the reassignment operations to push operations

samaradel marked this pull request as ready for review August 6, 2025 13:26

samaradel requested review from AhmedHanafy725 and 0oM4R August 6, 2025 13:26

ramezsaeed mentioned this pull request Aug 6, 2025

QA progress August 2025 threefoldtech/home#1588

Closed

0oM4R requested changes Aug 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

samaradel marked this pull request as draft August 7, 2025 12:20

0oM4R reviewed Aug 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

Create a function to handle the name of contracts

7785d55

samaradel marked this pull request as ready for review August 7, 2025 13:51

samaradel requested a review from 0oM4R August 7, 2025 13:51

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Emit and create contract for FQDN #4317

Emit and create contract for FQDN #4317

Uh oh!

samaradel commented Jul 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

0oM4R Aug 4, 2025

Uh oh!

0oM4R Aug 5, 2025

Uh oh!

AhmedHanafy725 Aug 6, 2025

Uh oh!

ramezsaeed commented Aug 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

0oM4R left a comment

Uh oh!

0oM4R Aug 7, 2025

Uh oh!

0oM4R Aug 7, 2025

Uh oh!

samaradel Aug 7, 2025

Uh oh!

AhmedHanafy725 Aug 10, 2025

Uh oh!

samaradel Aug 12, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Emit and create contract for FQDN #4317

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Emit and create contract for FQDN #4317

Uh oh!

Conversation

samaradel commented Jul 29, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Changes

Related Issues

Tested Scenarios

Documentation PR

To consider

Preliminary Checks:

UI Checks:

Code Quality Checks:

Testing Checklist

General Checklist

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ramezsaeed commented Aug 6, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

0oM4R left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

samaradel commented Jul 29, 2025 •

edited

Loading

ramezsaeed commented Aug 6, 2025 •

edited

Loading