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

Consolidate mastery criteria #3426

Merged

Conversation

ozer550
Copy link
Member

@ozer550 ozer550 commented Jun 11, 2022

Summary

Description of the change(s) you made

  • Removed m n and mastery_model from ExtraFieldsSerializer.
  • Added callable consolidate_extra_fields function to consolidate previous mastrey criteria
  • Changed unit tests
  • Created new tests for set and unset completion_criteria cases.

Manual verification steps performed

  1. Ran all tests related to contentnode

Comments

  • Needs more robust validation in def to_internal_value function (we need to create a new issue for this)

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.

Added some comments regarding the extra_fields data in your tests

metadata = self.contentnode_db_metadata
metadata["extra_fields"] = {
"options": {
"threshold": {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This structure of threshold and model are new, so having those directly underneath options doesn't currently exist. What's your intent here-- to emulate the old/existing structure?

The old/existing structure should be:

        metadata["extra_fields"] = {
            "options": {
                "m": 3,
                "n": 6,
                "mastery_model": exercises.M_OF_N,
            }
        }

Since you added your consolidate_extra_fields to field_map, which is invoked during serialization of a content node, a good test would be to ensure that serializing a content node with the old mastery structure, like in a GET request, produces the new structure.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I made a mistake here. The old format was at the top level of extra_fields, not extra_fields.options. So in your tests, the old data should be moved up a level, and a change to your consolidate function to match. I got hung up on the existence of threshold that you had previously, I missed that the old format wasn't inside options. My apologies!

@bjester bjester added DEV: backend python Pull requests that update Python code labels Jun 13, 2022
@ozer550 ozer550 requested a review from bjester June 16, 2022 06:06
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.

One change requested regarding print statement.

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.

Sorry! Just noticed one last thing - the old style data is being set as this:

            extra_fields={
                "options": {
                    "m": None,
                    "n": None,
                    "mastery_model": None,
                }
            }

but it should be at the top level of extra_fields like this:

            extra_fields={
                "m": None,
                "n": None,
                "mastery_model": None,
            }

Will need a couple of tweaks in the consolidate_extra_fields function too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
DEV: backend python Pull requests that update Python code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants