Skip to content

feat: [FC-7879] implement get_user_dates() method to get all user dates for a course#326#346

Open
kyrylo-kh wants to merge 2 commits intoopenedx:masterfrom
raccoongang:rg/axm-dates-implement-service-layer-for-date-resolution
Open

feat: [FC-7879] implement get_user_dates() method to get all user dates for a course#326#346
kyrylo-kh wants to merge 2 commits intoopenedx:masterfrom
raccoongang:rg/axm-dates-implement-service-layer-for-date-resolution

Conversation

@kyrylo-kh
Copy link
Member

NOTE: Depends on #343

Description

This PR adds a new API function get_user_dates(course_id, user_id) to return a comprehensive map of dates for a given course and user.

Functionality

  • Returns a dictionary where keys are (block_key, field) tuples and values are datetime objects.

  • Prioritizes user-specific overrides (UserDate) over default content dates (ContentDate with DatePolicy).

  • Supports optional filtering by:

    • block_types (e.g., sequential, vertical)
    • block_keys (UsageKey or string list)
    • date_types (due, start, etc.)

Features

  • Handles missing schedules and skips invalid or inactive dates gracefully.
  • Fully supports both string and object inputs for course and block keys.
  • Optimized with prefetching to minimize query overhead.

Testing

Extensive test suite verifies:

  • Correct merging of user and default dates
  • All filtering options
  • Multiple overrides with the latest one selected
  • Handling of edge cases like empty datasets or missing metadata

@openedx-webhooks
Copy link

Thanks for the pull request, @kyrylo-kh!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/openedx-unmaintained.

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.

Details
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 Feb 9, 2026
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this to Needs Triage in Contributions Feb 9, 2026
@kyrylo-kh kyrylo-kh requested a review from e0d February 9, 2026 18:23
@mphilbrick211 mphilbrick211 moved this from Needs Triage to Waiting on Author in Contributions Feb 9, 2026
@mphilbrick211 mphilbrick211 added the FC Relates to an Axim Funded Contribution project label Feb 9, 2026
@@ -0,0 +1,378 @@
"""
Test cases for the api module of edx-when.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

dates[key] = content_date.user_overrides[0].actual_date
else:
try:
dates[key] = content_date.policy.actual_date()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I notice that this call is without arguments, compared to this:

dates[key] = cdate.policy.actual_date(schedule, end_datetime, cutoff_datetime)

Has this been tested with self-paced courses?

return schedules


def get_user_dates(course_id, user_id, block_types=None, block_keys=None, date_types=None):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm trying to grok how this function and [get_dates_for_course()](https://github.com/openedx/edx-when/blob/ab2ee71af64ee6ef720083586eb26e1f58a748d9/edx_when/api.py#L163) relate. Given that there is some repeated code, is there a cleaner refactoring that's possible?

content_date=content_date,
abs_date=datetime(2023, 1, 20, 10, 0, 0)
)
older_override.modified = datetime(2023, 1, 1, 10, 0, 0)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Does the model potentially override your override of the modified field given this is a TimeStampedModel? Can you add a check to confirm this field is returned with the expected value?

@mphilbrick211 mphilbrick211 moved this from Waiting on Author to In Eng Review in Contributions Feb 25, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

FC Relates to an Axim Funded Contribution project open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U

Projects

Status: In Eng Review

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants