Implement first-party domain blocking

[pilgrim-brave]

Resolves brave/brave-browser#14134

Submitter Checklist:

• There is a ticket for my issue
• Used Github auto-closing keywords in the PR description above
• Wrote a good PR/commit description
• Added appropriate labels (QA/Yes or QA/No; release-notes/include or release-notes/exclude; OS/...) to the associated issue
• Checked the PR locally: npm run test -- brave_browser_tests, npm run test -- brave_unit_tests, npm run lint, npm run gn_check, npm run tslint
• Ran git rebase master (if needed)
• Requested a security/privacy review as needed

Reviewer Checklist:

• New files have MPL-2.0 license header
• Adequate test coverage exists to prevent regressions
• Major classes, functions and non-trivial code blocks are well-commented
• Changes in component dependencies are properly reflected in gn
• Code follows the style guide
• Test plan is specified in PR before merging

After-merge Checklist:

• The associated issue milestone is set to the smallest version that the
  changes has landed on
• All relevant documentation has been updated, for instance:
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove)
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Proxy-redirected-URLs
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Fingerprinting-Protections
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Brave%E2%80%99s-Use-of-Referral-Codes
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Custom-Headers
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Web-Compatibility-Exceptions-in-Brave
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/QA-Guide
  • https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/P3A

Test Plan:

[diracdeltas]

does this do anything for pages loaded in iframes, or do those just get blocked/allowed without an interstitial?

[antonok-edm]

does this do anything for pages loaded in iframes, or do those just get blocked/allowed without an interstitial?

@diracdeltas those should already be handled from before this PR with the latter behavior

[antonok-edm]

Just tested out this PR with DEPS updated to include brave/adblock-rust@732994b, and the resource type from domain_blocked_navigation_throttle.cc updated to kMainFrame.

After manually loading a custom DAT built using the corresponding adblock-rust version, entering any of the domains from Peter Lowe's list brings up an interstitial as expected. Other than the changes above, this looks good to me 😄

@pilgrim-brave the DAT in question is here, if you'd like to try it out on your end as well.

[pilgrim-brave]

Just tested out this PR with DEPS updated to include brave/adblock-rust@732994b, and the resource type from domain_blocked_navigation_throttle.cc updated to kMainFrame.

That's great news, thank you. Should I include the DEPS update in this PR, or does adblock-rust have its own integration cycle?

[antonok-edm]

@pilgrim-brave you can go ahead and include it in this PR as soon as brave/adblock-rust-ffi#34 is merged into master, and then it should get automatically updated by a npm run sync.

[pilgrim-brave]

Ready for review.

[antonok-edm]

This looks good to me 👍

[iefremov]

I'll take another look soon

[iefremov]

@pilgrim-brave would be really helpful to see new changes as new commits when they are not trivial

[pilgrim-brave]

@pilgrim-brave would be really helpful to see new changes as new commits when they are not trivial

OK. The latest version includes a feature flag as requested and checks it in MaybeCreateThrottle before creating anything; includes WillStartRedirect as requested; includes a SCOPED_UMA_HISTOGRAM_TIMER in ShouldBlockDomainOnTaskRunner as requested.

[pilgrim-brave]

Also a new test to check that disabling the feature flag disables the interstitial properly.

[pilgrim-brave]

CI failures are unrelated.