feat: Multiple updates to handle children upstream info [FC-0097]

[ChrisChV]

Description

• Which edX user roles will this change impact? "Developer"".
• Added upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info in ContainerChildrenSerializer
• Now, the ContainerChildrenView can return the upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info
• Update the child info in UpstreamLink._check_children_ready_to_sync

Supporting information

• Github issue: Child text override sync handling frontend-app-authoring#2438
• Used in: feat: Shows an alert in container sync if the only change is a local override to a text component [FC-0097] frontend-app-authoring#2516
• Internal ticket: FAL-4247

Testing instructions

Follow the testing instructions in openedx/frontend-app-authoring#2516

Deadline

Before the Ulmo cut

Other information

N/A

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @ChrisChV!

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.

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:

• 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.

[navinkarkera]

@ChrisChV Looks good.:+1:

• I tested this: (Verified alert behaviour in frontend PR)
• I read through the code
• I checked for accessibility issues
• Includes documentation

[bradenmacdonald]

Is upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info covered by any tests?

[bradenmacdonald]

Looking at the UI code that uses this, we're always either fetching the existing container data (that was available before this PR), or the new upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info , but never using both in one place. So I think it would have been cleaner to just make this upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info a separate API instead of adding it to an existing API and adding a query parameter. That would have kept our APIs simpler and cleaner. Or is there a reason to have them together?

I'm not requesting changes, since I think we're out of budget here. Navin's approval is enough to merge.

[ChrisChV]

Is upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info covered by any tests?

Updated 480741f

Looking at the UI code that uses this, we're always either fetching the existing container data (that was available before this PR), or the new upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info , but never using both in one place. So I think it would have been cleaner to just make this upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info a separate API instead of adding it to an existing API and adding a query parameter. That would have kept our APIs simpler and cleaner. Or is there a reason to have them together?

You're right. What happened is that initially, both were used in the same place, but due to issues with displaying the alert while browsing through the children, it was extracted into a new call that only uses the upstream_ready_to_sync_children_info. I agree to refactor it into another task if there is budget, but this code may also be deleted in the future, since it is very specific and temporary.