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

Run migrations to fix incorrect source fields of contentnodes #4720

Conversation

ozer550
Copy link
Member

@ozer550 ozer550 commented Sep 10, 2024

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

Copy link
Member

@bjester bjester left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just some comments

source_channel_id=self.original_channel.id,
source_node_id=self.original_contentnode.node_id,
original_source_node_id=self.original_contentnode.node_id,
)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One suggestion would be to use the same copy/import utilities that we use elsewhere, then override the things that shouldn't have changed, but it isn't a big deal. From my perspective, I like to do my best to ensure the tests are founded upon the app's behaviors as much as possible, because too many differences could cause the tests to pass when they shouldn't (under the typical behaviors of the app)

@rtibbles rtibbles self-assigned this Sep 24, 2024
print(node.id == base_channel.main_tree.id)
print("checking if the node is complete or not ", node.complete)
node.changed = False
# This should probably again change the changed=true but suprisingly it doesnot
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

In case this helps this feel less surprising: https://github.com/learningequality/studio/blob/unstable/contentcuration/contentcuration/models.py#L1831

We have an explicit exclude list of fields for which updates to them do not trigger change to be set as True.

Copy link
Member

@rtibbles rtibbles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One question about how many times we're republishing :)

I am still not completely sure what to do about the identity of the user who does the publish, but an admin account seems easiest. We can query for that using [email protected] as the email address to look up the user id.

if is_test:
publish_channel(user_id, base_channel.id)
else:
publish_channel("SOME ID", base_channel.id, base_channel.id)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My only uncertainty here is whether we should be running the publish as the user whose channel it is, or as some administrator.

The administrator means that we can always reliably run the publish as the same user, but does mean that it now appears that someone else has published the channel. The only other thing that comes to mind is that if we ran as the channel editor, they would receive an email indicating to them that their channel had been republished.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The email draft that will be sent by imps team mentions that "WE" would be the one doing the change so the administrator seems more reliable option here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Altho this email is not sent to editors of channels which are not public, so they might be confused about whats happening. When as channel editor the sending email event can be avoided, as by default send_email=False is set for publish channel function?

Copy link
Member

@rtibbles rtibbles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not seeing anything else to do here - I think we can merge and see how this runs on hotfixes?

@akolson
Copy link
Member

akolson commented Sep 27, 2024

Merging this. Thanks @ozer550 for your persistence on this, @bjester @rtibbles for your reviews.

@akolson akolson merged commit 6f6daf2 into learningequality:unstable Sep 27, 2024
13 checks passed
@akolson akolson mentioned this pull request Sep 30, 2024
@pcenov
Copy link
Member

pcenov commented Oct 1, 2024

@akolson no issues observed while running the CWs.

@akolson akolson mentioned this pull request Oct 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Run migrations for any previously edited "Source" fields for copied/imported resources
5 participants