Allow superuser ext to override client/server transfer prohibited

[gbrodman]

The superuser can remove/add those statuses anyway, so there's not really any point. This also saves us trouble if we need to do a BTAPPA transfer.

---

This change is 

[CydeWeys]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @gbrodman)

---

core/src/main/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainTransferRequestFlow.java line 136 at r1 (raw file):

public final class DomainTransferRequestFlow implements MutatingFlow {

  private static final ImmutableSet<StatusValue> DISALLOWED_STATUSES = ImmutableSet.of(

Rename this to NON_SUPERUSER_DISALLOWED_STATUSES or similar? Pending delete still remains a disallowed status in all situations (as it should).

---

core/src/main/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainTransferRequestFlow.java line 138 at r1 (raw file):

  private static final ImmutableSet<StatusValue> DISALLOWED_STATUSES = ImmutableSet.of(
      StatusValue.CLIENT_TRANSFER_PROHIBITED,
      StatusValue.SERVER_TRANSFER_PROHIBITED);

Two potential issues that occur to me if we don't block on SERVER_TRANSFER_PROHIBITED ...

1. We would be overriding registry lock. Is that what registrars expect?
2. Potentially more problematically, we would be overriding domains suspended by URS. I don't think we can or should do that.

[CydeWeys]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @gbrodman)

---

core/src/main/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainTransferRequestFlow.java line 138 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, CydeWeys (Ben McIlwain) wrote…

Two potential issues that occur to me if we don't block on SERVER_TRANSFER_PROHIBITED ...

1. We would be overriding registry lock. Is that what registrars expect?
2. Potentially more problematically, we would be overriding domains suspended by URS. I don't think we can or should do that.

Phrased alternatively, what situations where a server lock is applied should we be overriding for bulk transfers?

[gbrodman]

Reviewable status: 0 of 2 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @CydeWeys)

---

core/src/main/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainTransferRequestFlow.java line 136 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, CydeWeys (Ben McIlwain) wrote…

Rename this to NON_SUPERUSER_DISALLOWED_STATUSES or similar? Pending delete still remains a disallowed status in all situations (as it should).

sure

---

core/src/main/java/google/registry/flows/domain/DomainTransferRequestFlow.java line 138 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, CydeWeys (Ben McIlwain) wrote…

Phrased alternatively, what situations where a server lock is applied should we be overriding for bulk transfers?

Theoretically, we'd probably want a domain that was previously locked and BTAPPAed to continue to be registry locked, right? we'd want to maintain the server*prohibited statuses i'd imagine

In the very weird event of BTAPPAing a URS-locked domain, what's the downside of transferring it anyway? The locks would remain in place, and the DNS would remain unchanged.