Run migrations to fix incorrect source fields of contentnodes

[ozer550]

Summary

We filter out all the contentnodes whose source fields have been changed after being imported and reset them to their original values.

Manual verification steps performed

1. Ran the query in hotfixes
2. Verified the returned nodes conform to expected disparities.

Reviewer guidance

How can a reviewer test these changes?

Recommended to run the query in hotfixes and verify the returned nodes. some of the fields to look at would be
last date of modification and verifying what source_node_fields have been changed.

Are there any risky areas that deserve extra testing?

If there is something that is missed migrations may be incorrect and may effect large number of nodes.

References

closes #4190

Comments

---

Contributor's Checklist

PR process:

• If this is an important user-facing change, PR or related issue the CHANGELOG label been added to this PR. Note: items with this label will be added to the CHANGELOG at a later time
• If this includes an internal dependency change, a link to the diff is provided
• The docs label has been added if this introduces a change that needs to be updated in the user docs?
• If any Python requirements have changed, the updated requirements.txt files also included in this PR
• Opportunities for using Google Analytics here are noted
• Migrations are safe for a large db

Studio-specifc:

• All user-facing strings are translated properly
• The notranslate class been added to elements that shouldn't be translated by Google Chrome's automatic translation feature (e.g. icons, user-generated text)
• All UI components are LTR and RTL compliant
• Views are organized into pages, components, and layouts directories as described in the docs
• Users' storage used is recalculated properly on any changes to main tree files
• If there new ways this uses user data that needs to be factored into our Privacy Policy, it has been noted.

Testing:

• Code is clean and well-commented
• Contributor has fully tested the PR manually
• If there are any front-end changes, before/after screenshots are included
• Critical user journeys are covered by Gherkin stories
• Any new interactions have been added to the QA Sheet
• Critical and brittle code paths are covered by unit tests

---

Reviewer's Checklist

This section is for reviewers to fill out.

• Automated test coverage is satisfactory
• PR is fully functional
• PR has been tested for accessibility regressions
• External dependency files were updated if necessary (yarn and pip)
• Documentation is updated
• Contributor is in AUTHORS.md

[ozer550]

whats the best way to republish this?

[bjester]

We can use publish_channel from here: https://github.com/learningequality/studio/blob/unstable/contentcuration/contentcuration/utils/publish.py#L918

It requires a user_id though, which we'll need to figure out what to use.