Channel history tracking and prober endpoint for publishing status alerts

[bjester]

Summary

Background

• In the last few months we've seen several forum posts regarding channels that became "stuck" (no forward progress) during publishing
• As release manager, I would like to avoid interrupting channel publication as much as possible. It's possible that initiating a release deploy can interrupt the publish process which requires manual correction. Checking the status of channel publishing or to manually resolve a channel publishing issue requires production shell access, something that I would like to minimize.
• As release manager, I would like to be alerted when a channel's publication becomes stalled for any reason or takes too long so that I can take immediate intervention. This includes channel publication interrupted by a release deploy, an infrastructural issue slowing down task processing, restart/redeploy of server infrastructure, or other extant bugs.
• As a contributor interested in security, I would like to ensure that we have auditing in place to give us insight into potential security problems should they arise. This auditing can help fill gaps that we've uncovered in auditing channel permissions, such as the initial creator of a channel.

Description of the change(s) you made

• Adds new model ChannelHistory to associate history of creation, publication, deletion, and recovery of channels with user who initiated it and when
• Updates channel procedures to create relevant ChannelHistory
• Adds prober endpoint for returning publishing status, utilizing ChannelHistory

Manual verification steps performed

1. Manually update export_channel_task to time.sleep(10000)
2. Publish a channel
3. As admin, load /api/probers/publishing_status
4. Ensure that the channel is listed in the endpoint response
5. Run the prober from the command line: PROBER_PUBLISHING_ALERT_THRESHOLD=1 python deploy/probers/publishing_status_probe.py

Screenshots (if applicable)

Does this introduce any tech-debt items?

• When to prune history

---

Reviewer guidance

How can a reviewer test these changes?

Are there any risky areas that deserve extra testing?

References

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

[sonarqubecloud]

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
1 Security Hotspot
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
5.0% Duplication

[rtibbles]

I'll remember to update this in my PR as well after merging - where I made the regular delete a soft delete too.