Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: in-context discussion for units can be disabled by default #35414

Conversation

kaustavb12
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Currently for all new units which are added to a course, the in-context discussions is enabled by default, which the course instructor can disable individually.

This PR, adds to the ability to keep the in-context discussions disabled by default. That way all new units which are added will have the discussions sidebar disabled and can be individually enabled by the course instructors.

Testing instructions

  1. Checkout this branch in your local dev environment
  2. Create a new course and add a unit there.
  3. Check that the in-context discussions sidebar is enabled for that unit by default. Go to the LMS and verify that the same.
  4. Now set IN_CONTEXT_DISCUSSION_ENABLED_DEFAULT feature flag to False
  5. Create a new unit again and this time check that the in-context discussion is disabled by default for that unit. Go to the LMS and verify the same.

Deadline

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

Other information

Private Ref : BB-9112

@openedx-webhooks
Copy link

Thanks for the pull request, @kaustavb12!

What's next?

Please work through the following steps to get your changes 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.

🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:

Who will review my changes?

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/wg-maintenance-edx-platform. Tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for review.

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:

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.

@openedx-webhooks openedx-webhooks added the open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U label Sep 2, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@xitij2000 xitij2000 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 Looks good! I only wonder if this should be in FEATURES or just settings?

@mphilbrick211
Copy link

Hi @kaustavb12! Are you still planning to pursue this pull request?

@kaustavb12
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey @mphilbrick211

Yes, I would like to pursue this PR.

@farhaanbukhsh
Copy link
Member

@kaustavb12 can you please rebase the PR?

cms/envs/common.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@kaustavb12 kaustavb12 force-pushed the kaustav/disable_default_in_context_discussion branch from 36ee42c to 2570aea Compare October 31, 2024 12:39
@kaustavb12 kaustavb12 force-pushed the kaustav/disable_default_in_context_discussion branch from 2570aea to 83c9216 Compare October 31, 2024 12:41
@kaustavb12
Copy link
Contributor Author

@farhaanbukhsh The PR has been rebased, please take a look.

Copy link
Member

@farhaanbukhsh farhaanbukhsh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

  • ✅ I tested this on Tutor devstack and this works perfectly, this work is under a feature flag so it should be okay to merge.
  • ✅ I read through the code
  • ❌ I checked for accessibility issues
  • ❌ Includes documentation
  • ❌ I made sure any change in configuration variables is reflected in the corresponding client's configuration-secure repository.

@farhaanbukhsh farhaanbukhsh merged commit e18b1c8 into openedx:master Nov 2, 2024
49 checks passed
@farhaanbukhsh farhaanbukhsh deleted the kaustav/disable_default_in_context_discussion branch November 2, 2024 14:52
@edx-pipeline-bot
Copy link
Contributor

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX staging environment in preparation for a release to production.

@edx-pipeline-bot
Copy link
Contributor

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX production environment.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants