many: rename registries to confdbs

[miguelpires]

Commit 1136f37 renames the registries feature to confdbs. This includes the assertions and feature flags. So anyone who has the experimental feature enabled should unset it, refresh and then it enable it back (otherwise, change the state and exported file directly if you can do that safely). Assertions will need to be regenerated with the new assertion type.
Commit 11f18d9 pluralizes the confdb API endpoint, renaming it form /v2/confdb/... to /v2/confdbs/... which is unrelated to the previous commit but something I've been meaning to do anyway so might as well change it once

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 92.38095% with 24 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.21%. Comparing base (96ea7b0) to head (8a2f81e).
Report is 150 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
overlord/confdbstate/confdbstate.go	90.27%	5 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
asserts/snapasserts/snapasserts.go	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
cmd/snap/cmd_get.go	81.81%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
cmd/snap/cmd_set.go	80.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
cmd/snap/cmd_unset.go	71.42%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
overlord/hookstate/ctlcmd/get.go	92.30%	2 Missing ⚠️
daemon/api_confdb.go	93.75%	1 Missing ⚠️
overlord/assertstate/assertmgr.go	50.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
overlord/assertstate/assertstate.go	94.11%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
overlord/assertstate/bulk.go	80.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
... and 2 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #14768      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.95%   78.21%   -0.74%     
==========================================
  Files        1084     1148      +64     
  Lines      146638   151318    +4680     
==========================================
+ Hits       115773   118352    +2579     
- Misses      23667    25640    +1973     
- Partials     7198     7326     +128     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	78.21% <92.38%> (-0.74%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[andrewphelpsj]

Thank you!

[ZeyadYasser]

LGTM! only small nitpicks

[ZeyadYasser]

I think this warrants a change to the exclusion map in tests/main/document-interfaces-url/task.yaml? I am confused by why it didn't fail in CI.

[miguelpires]

My bad, I did that in another PR that changed that test by mistake and didn't fix it here. It also didn't fail there strangely, I'm guessing that it got a 500 instead but haven't validated this yet #14777 (comment)

[ernestl]

Failures:

• centos, fedora, opensuse | known issues
• spread nested-ubuntu-24.04 | known issue