DomainMinLengthRestrictions not working with newgtld

[ripnet]

Hello.

 

Please help, have a this configuration.php

 

$DomainMinLengthRestrictions[".ru"] = 2;

$DomainMaxLengthRestrictions[".ru"] = 63;

$DomainMinLengthRestrictions[".club"] = 4;

$DomainMaxLengthRestrictions[".club"] = 64;

$DomainMinLengthRestrictions[".fashion"] = 3;

$DomainMaxLengthRestrictions[".fashion"] = 64;

$DomainMinLengthRestrictions[".vodka"] = 3;

$DomainMaxLengthRestrictions[".vodka"] = 64;

 

For dot RU work good. For other .fashion and .vodka and try .ooo

 

$DomainMinLengthRestrictions[".ooo"] = 3;

$DomainMaxLengthRestrictions[".ooo"] = 64;

 

Not working. Is this bug? How to fix?

Thanks

[brian!]

i'd be inclined to think bug, but this feature has always been a bit hit and miss...

i've just tried this on a v6.3.1 dev with two TLDs added - .ie and .ooo - if I use the following...

 

$DomainMinLengthRestrictions[".ie"] = 3;
$DomainMaxLengthRestrictions[".ie"] = 64;
$DomainMinLengthRestrictions[".ooo"] = 6;
$DomainMaxLengthRestrictions[".ooo"] = 64;

... I am allowed to order 'abcd.ooo' - if I change the min .ie value to 10, then I can't order 'abcd.ooo' - so why does that value of .ie affect .ooo

also, with the .ie value at 10, it offers 'abcd.ie' as a suggested alternative - but shouldn't that be invalid too ??

 

if you use the code below, I can wrongly order 'abcd000000000.ooo'... (12 characters)

 

$DomainMinLengthRestrictions = array(".ie"=>"10",".ooo"=>"15");

it seems to be using the lowest minimum value for all of them...

yet if I try the same line (though with a change of TLDs) on a v5.3.14 dev installation, it works PERFECTLY!

 

$DomainMinLengthRestrictions = array(".wales"=>"5",".club"=>"20");

it might be worth opening a ticket with support to get them to investigate this further - though it possibly might be a little late to be fixed for the next release.

 

one other thing to be aware of, OpenSRS&RC both state that .club/.fashion and .vodka are all 3&63 - which are the default values for TLDs unless specified, so you shouldn't need to enter the min values for these TLDs - and you might want to check with your own registrar(s) that they are max 64.

[othellotech]

i'd be inclined to think bug

It's a recurring bug/problem

 

it seems to be using the lowest minimum value for all of them...

From my testing a while ago, it seems to remember the minimum _value_ between searches

So a check for 123.(tld1) when 3 is the min (so allowed) remembers "3" and then a search for 123.(tld2) when 5 is the min (so not allowed) still gets accepted (and allows orders which fail)

[WHMCS John]

Hi,

I can confirm this is an issue of which we're aware and that case CORE-10089 is open with our development team to have this resolved in future.

 

Unfortunately, I cannot provide an estimated time for completion for this. However, once we resolve cases and push features they are available at our change log, here:

 

http://changelog.whmcs.com/

 

I apologize for the inconvenience, and appreciate your patience as we work to resolve this.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to report your findings. We welcome bug reports at http://bugs.whmcs.com/