Add noop jurisdictions in workerd #4745

joshthoward · 2025-08-11T13:31:02Z

I am on the fence whether this is worthwhile. I don't like it because the jurisdictions feature makes no sense in workerd, but customers would like to have jurisdiction support in local development. This adds jurisdictions which effectively do nothing, but should have the same properties that they do in edgeworker. This changes the way that actor IDs are computed in workerd, which is technically a breaking change.

jasnell · 2025-08-11T15:26:26Z

src/workerd/api/tests/actor-stub-test.js

+      // Check that no two DurableObjectId created via `newUniqueId()` are equal.
+      const id1 = env.ns.newUniqueId();
+      const id2 = env.ns.newUniqueId();
+      assert.equal(id1.equals(id2), false);


Suggested change

assert.equal(id1.equals(id2), false);

assert.ok(!id1.equals(id2));

jasnell · 2025-08-11T15:27:14Z

src/workerd/api/tests/actor-stub-test.js

+    // });
+    assert.throws(() => {
+      euNs.jurisdiction('fedramp');
+    });


assert.throws(...) really ought to have a second argument to test the error type and message (here and in the other cases below).

jasnell · 2025-08-11T15:27:26Z

src/workerd/api/tests/actor-stub-test.js

+      // jurisdictions.
+      const id1 = euNs.newUniqueId();
+      const id2 = euNs.newUniqueId();
+      assert.equal(id1.equals(id2), false);


Suggested change

assert.equal(id1.equals(id2), false);

assert.ok(!id1.equals(id2));

jasnell · 2025-08-11T15:27:45Z

src/workerd/api/tests/actor-stub-test.js

+      assert.equal(id1.equals(id2), false);
+      assert.equal(id2.equals(id3), true);


Suggested change

assert.equal(id1.equals(id2), false);

assert.equal(id2.equals(id3), true);

assert.ok(!id1.equals(id2));

assert.ok(id2.equals(id3));

jasnell · 2025-08-11T15:31:48Z

src/workerd/server/actor-id-impl.c++

@@ -87,14 +108,28 @@ kj::Own<ActorIdFactory::ActorId> ActorIdFactoryImpl::idFromString(kj::String str
  JSG_REQUIRE(kj::arrayPtr(id).slice(BASE_LENGTH).startsWith(decoded.asPtr().slice(BASE_LENGTH)),
      TypeError, "Durable Object ID is not valid for this namespace.");

-  return kj::heap<ActorIdImpl>(id, kj::none);
+  // TODO(jhoward): This has an issue that an actor ID will loose its jurisdiction after being


Nit: we don't typically use names in the TODO comments... generally these should be like TODO(soon), TODO(cleanup), etc.

jasnell · 2025-08-11T15:32:46Z

src/workerd/server/actor-id-impl.c++

+      "Cannot create a jurisdictional subnamespace from a subnamespace that already "
+      "has a jurisdiction set");
+  // TODO(jhoward): Do these warnings show up in local dev?
+  KJ_LOG(WARNING, "jurisdiction restrictions have no affect in workerd", jurisdiction);


Might make sense to make this LOG_ONCE or LOG_PERIODICALLY

jasnell · 2025-08-11T15:33:56Z

src/workerd/server/actor-id-impl.c++

-bool ActorIdFactoryImpl::matchesJurisdiction(const ActorId& id) {
+bool ActorIdFactoryImpl::matchesJurisdiction(const ActorId& abstractId) {
+  // TODO(jhoward): Is there something more idiomatic here? KJ_IF_SOME gives me an unused variable,
+  // but the tour says to avoid checking kj::none explicitly.


This pattern is fine. You could use a maybeJurisdiction.map(...) but to my eyes that's less readable.

jasnell · 2025-08-11T15:35:07Z

src/workerd/server/actor-id-impl.h

-    ActorIdImpl(const kj::byte idParam[SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH], kj::Maybe<kj::String> name);
+    ActorIdImpl(const kj::byte idParam[SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH],
+        kj::Maybe<kj::String> name,
+        kj::Maybe<kj::String> maybeJurisdiction);


Suggested change

kj::Maybe<kj::String> maybeJurisdiction);

kj::Maybe<kj::String> maybeJurisdiction = kj::none);

joshthoward · 2025-08-13T21:03:51Z

If anyone else is confused by the history of this PR like me it shows as merged because the branch name used in this PR was reused in another PR. The commit that was merged into master is 3059777 which does not reflect the changes that James commented on or that match the description "Add noop jurisdictions in workerd".

The decision to not "Add noop jurisdictions in workerd" is due to the fact that jurisdictions have no meaning in workerd and to make them match Cloudflare's production environment we would have to change the way that we encode DurableObjectIds in workerd and therefore either break customers or maintain a mechanism for reading older DurableObjectIds before supporting jurisdictions. This is just more trouble than it is worth. The alternative that we will pursue is to allow jurisdictions to be nullish for workerd so that local development is easier for customers. E.g.

const ns = env.MY_DURABLE_OBJECT.jurisdiction(env.JURISDICTION);

vs.

let ns;
if (!env.JURISDICTION) {
  ns = env.MY_DURABLE_OBJECT;
} else {
  ns = env.MY_DURABLE_OBJECT.jurisdiction(env.JURISDICTION);
}

Assuming that JURISDICTION is a env variable set on production.

jasnell reviewed Aug 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

Allow jurisdictions to be undefined

3059777

joshthoward force-pushed the joshthoward/jurisdictions branch from 9d1ae14 to 3059777 Compare August 13, 2025 16:46

joshthoward closed this pull request by merging all changes into main in b4d75c0 Aug 13, 2025

joshthoward deleted the joshthoward/jurisdictions branch August 13, 2025 17:50

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Add noop jurisdictions in workerd #4745

Add noop jurisdictions in workerd #4745

Uh oh!

joshthoward commented Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

joshthoward commented Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

	assert.equal(id1.equals(id2), false);
	assert.ok(!id1.equals(id2));

		assert.equal(id1.equals(id2), false);
		assert.equal(id2.equals(id3), true);

	kj::Maybe<kj::String> maybeJurisdiction);
	kj::Maybe<kj::String> maybeJurisdiction = kj::none);

Add noop jurisdictions in workerd #4745

Add noop jurisdictions in workerd #4745

Uh oh!

Conversation

joshthoward commented Aug 11, 2025

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

joshthoward commented Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jasnell Aug 11, 2025 •

edited

Loading