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

Move CCX-related field overrides to happen at the modulestore layer... #79

Closed
pdpinch opened this issue Apr 17, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@pdpinch
Copy link

pdpinch commented Apr 17, 2015

... so that content-related services like search and course structures can query with the new CCX course keys.

Depends on #43

@pdpinch
Copy link
Author

pdpinch commented May 21, 2015

@bdero this was a request from Dave Ormsbee. Do you think this would have any affect on

a) our memory issues
b) where we might control overrides at a per-course level?

@bdero
Copy link
Member

bdero commented May 21, 2015

I'm actually not too sure what this means. Is this CCX-specific, or is this a proposal for reimplementing field overrides to not be a field data wrapper? What does it mean for e.g. the content search feature to "query with the new CCX course keys"? Is this because the field data will only be filtered while rendering, but features like the search service query the course tree in a more direct way?

@bdero
Copy link
Member

bdero commented May 21, 2015

If I'm guessing right, the intention is to make field override providers work whenever something tries to read field data - in which case I don't think it will have an effect on the performance/memory problem.

@pdpinch
Copy link
Author

pdpinch commented May 21, 2015

I think you're right @bdero. In fact, this might expand the set of cases where we run into memory issues, depending on how these other services walk the course tree.

@pdpinch
Copy link
Author

pdpinch commented Jun 26, 2015

According to Dave Ormsbee at edX, this was already addressed in https://github.com/edx/edx-platform/pull/8519

@pdpinch pdpinch closed this as completed Jun 26, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants