feat: DEFAULT_COURSE_INVITATION_ONLY allow for invitation_only new co…

[viadanna]

Description

This pull request adds a DEFAULT_COURSE_INVITATION_ONLY setting to the CMS that, when set to True, makes all courses created in Studio invitation-only by default.

Testing instructions

1. Deploy this branch to a sandbox or devstack.
2. Set the DEFAULT_COURSE_INVITATION_ONLY configuration to True in the appropriate configuration file.
3. Create a new course using Studio.
4. Verify the course Advanced Settings has invitation_only=True
5. Set the DEFAULT_COURSE_INVITATION_ONLY configuration to False in the appropriate configuration file.
6. Repeat steps 3 and 4 to verify invitation_only=False.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @viadanna!

What's next?

Please work through the following steps to get your changes 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.

🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:

Who will review my changes?

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/wg-maintenance-edx-platform. Tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for review.

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.

[mphilbrick211]

@CefBoud hi there! Are you able to merge this for us?

[CefBoud]

LGTM ✅

• I tested this
• I read through the code

Sorry, @mphilbrick211, but I don't have the necessary permissions to merge.

[farhaanbukhsh]

@mphilbrick211 I can review and merge this :)

[mphilbrick211]

@mphilbrick211 I can review and merge this :)

Thank you!

[pdpinch]

I thought there was a feature flag for this already... (trying to find it)

[pdpinch]

Yeah, I think COURSES_INVITE_ONLY does this already.

See https://docs.openedx.org/projects/edx-platform/en/latest/references/featuretoggles.html#featuretoggle-COURSES_INVITE_ONLY

[viadanna]

Thanks for the heads-up @pdpinch it does seem to overlap with the work here.

Do you know what toggle_status: unsupported means for this feature? ref

[farhaanbukhsh]

👍

• ✅ I tested this on devstack and it works right
• ✅ I read through the code
• ❌ I checked for accessibility issues
• ❌ Includes documentation
• ❌ I made sure any change in configuration variables is reflected in the corresponding client's configuration-secure repository.

[farhaanbukhsh]

@pdpinch If you don't have any objection I would like to merge the PR.

[pdpinch]

Sorry, I'm not sure what the purpose would be. Can you use the existing setting instead of adding a new one? Is there some shortcoming in its behavior?

[viadanna]

@pdpinch The behavior is consistent with what we need. I'm just worried about # .. toggle_status: unsupported. Do you know what it means? I couldn't find any deprecation notice about it.

[farhaanbukhsh]

@viadanna @pdpinch I think # .. toggle_status: unsupported is present there since the inception I dug up some PR and got #27252. Mya be we should remove or update the status?

[pdpinch]

@farhaanbukhsh I agree. There doesn't seem to be anything in the documentation about a toggle_status annotation field. If it ever had meaning, it doesn't anymore.

It can safely be removed now.

[viadanna]

In that case, this case be closed. Thanks @pdpinch and @farhaanbukhsh

[farhaanbukhsh]

@viadanna can you open a PR cleaning up the status?