feat: follow migrated legacy library content block

[navinkarkera]

Description

Allows authors to migrate legacy library content block in course to library v2 if the source library was migrated. The block works with the new library and has the same functionality as the new ItemBankBlock.

This PR also fixes some issues with Problem Bank like Add components button not working in the preview page and iframe postMessage failure after syncing of component in the preview page.

screencast.mp4

Latest update in UI

screencast.mp4

Requirements as per The LegacyLibraryContentBlock OLX must work forever.

• The LegacyLibraryContentBlock OLX must work forever.
• L points at a legacy library, which has been migrated to a new V2 library.
  • Block Behavior: Preview and settings editor should look just like a modern ItemBank block.
  • Child Behavior: If updates are available (see below), they are shown per-child on the View page, using the migrated child blocks as the update source.
• L points at a legacy library, which has not been migrated.
  • Block and Child Behavior: Use existing LegacyLibraryContentBlock interface behavior.
• L is None, malformed, or doesn't point to an existing or migrated legacy library:
  • Block Behavior: Display a validation error. Syncing is not allowed. (existing behavior)
  • Child Behavior: Children are displayed if they exist, but no option to sync is offered.
    Sync behavior
• The parent LegacyLibraryContentBlock's version does not equal the migrated source library version (indicating that the legacy library received updates before its migration happened)

Useful information to include:

• Which edX user roles will this change impact? "Course Author" and "Developer"

Supporting information

• Follow migrated LegacyLibraryContentBlock references frontend-app-authoring#2386
• Private-ref: https://tasks.opencraft.com/browse/FAL-4251
• Related PR: fix: add components button in item bank children page frontend-app-authoring#2491

Testing instructions

• Create a legacy library with some components.
• Add a legacy library content block in course unit.
• Now migrate the legacy library.
• Refresh the course unit page, a new alert should appear on top of the library content block.
• Click on migrate button in the alert and verify that the block is migrated to Problem bank and behaves like it.
• The children blocks have upstream field set and show sync button if the v2 library component is updated.

Deadline

"None" if there's no rush, or provide a specific date or event (and reason) if there is one.

Other information

Include anything else that will help reviewers and consumers understand the change.

• Does this change depend on other changes elsewhere?
• Any special concerns or limitations? For example: deprecations, migrations, security, or accessibility.
• If your database migration can't be rolled back easily.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @navinkarkera!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/wg-maintenance-edx-platform.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[kdmccormick]

@navinkarkera I'm not sure this is the best approach. The point of this method is to render the block, not to modify it--sticking the migration here is surprising and auto-magical. It will also update the children when the block is rendered in LMS, which would either fail or be a no-op, and would be confusing either way. In general, we should not be modifying content except in response to the action of a Studio user.

I had tried to outline an idea to follow library_content child references without a child migration process, but since writing that, I've also come to dislike the idea, because it would break the simplifying assumption that we can just check self.upstream on any block to see its upstream link. So, I like that your PR uses a migration child step, but I think we need some explicit way to trigger it.

Here's an idea:

• When a legacy library_content block has (a) unmigrated chidlren and (b) a migrated source library, it gives the users the option to "sync" the latest content, regardless of whether are new changes in the target library.
• Syncing, in this case, will migrate the children.

It's a slight product behavior change. In particular, every legacy library content block would have a "sync available" as soon as an operator migrates its source library. But, I think it would be worth the simplified behavior information architecture. What do you think?

[navinkarkera]

@kdmccormick This is not the final version, locally I have something like this:

Sorry for the confusion.

[navinkarkera]

Once the author clicks on Migrate it looks like this:

I'll update the PR description once I push the changes.

[kdmccormick]

Cool, thanks. I think this is a good approach. I'll ask precisely what the UI should be at the sync-up tomorrow.

[kdmccormick]

looping UX into the discussion here: openedx/frontend-app-authoring#2386 (comment)

[rpenido]

LGTM 👍
Thank you for your work, @navinkarkera !

• I tested this using the instructions from the PR
• I read through the code
• I checked for accessibility issues
• Includes documentation

[ChrisChV]

Looks good! Thanks for the great work!

[ChrisChV]

@kdmccormick it's ready for another review

[kdmccormick]

Looking pretty solid as a whole, but I'd like to see some more attention to the nitty details of code quality, especially around correctness of type annotations.

I'm on vacation until Oct 15, so if another reviewer is available before then to approve this, no need to wait on my approval.

[kdmccormick]

Please catch exceptions that are more specific, and/or put fewer lines within the try clause. All sorts of things throw ValueError and TypeError; you could be unintentionally concealing bugs by catching like this.

[kdmccormick]

This does not say anything about what the keys are and what the value are--please be more descriptive.

[kdmccormick]

This is saying that the keys of the return dictionary are of type UsageKey | None. Why would the key ever be None? That sounds like it'd be a bug.

[kdmccormick]

Why stringify before returning? OpaqueKeys carry useful structure and type information. In this case, and in almost all other cases, it's best to pas around structured objects, and only convert to a string when it's absolutely necessary for serialization or display.

[kdmccormick]

the first item of this 3-tuple is not a UsageKey | None. it's a str. Regardless of that, you're not even using it. Why pass it in at all? Instead of passing the whole row in, you could desctructure the row (for (source_key, target_local_key, target_learning_package_key) in query_set) and just pass in the data you need.

[kdmccormick]

Please add a comment describing the structure of row[1] so that the reader can understand what is happing in this parsing step.

[kdmccormick]

I see you renamed validate to _validate so that LegacyLibraryContentBlock could add custom validation behavior. But this is a textbook use of inheritance:, is it not? Instead of renaming, I think you could keep the original method named ItemBankMixin.validate, and then have a LegacyLibraryContentBlock.validate method which overrides it and calls super().validate(...) in order to use the base behavior.

[navinkarkera]

@kdmccormick Yes, but we want to only use ItemBankMixin.validate() when the legacy block has been migrated else we want to use its parents, i.e. XBlock.validate() method.

Updated to use super() for migrated blocks and XBlock.validate() for unmigrated. See ecc6a0b

[kdmccormick]

We will never force-migrate course content

Suggested change

	# We cannot completely remove this block code until we force-migrate course content. Otherwise, we'll lose student
	# data (such as selected fields), which tracks the children selected for each user.
	# We can never completely remove the legacy library_content block; otherwise, we'd lose student
	# data, such as selected fields, which tracks the children selected for each user.

[kdmccormick]

🚀