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

Fix incorrectly marked "incomplete" exercises on exercise copy #4761

Conversation

marcellamaki
Copy link
Member

@marcellamaki marcellamaki commented Sep 26, 2024

Summary

Description of the change(s) you made

adds a flag to the updateContentNode action to determine whether or not we need to check for completion - required within the EditModal for validations to work properly, but not in other quick edit options. Previously, this check was setting complete to false incorrectly due to assessmentItems validation failing in situations where we hadn't loaded that assessment data (i.e. not EditModal).

Manual verification steps performed

  1. Copy a complete exercise from within the tree view (i.e. "make a copy") and confirm no false "incomplete"
  2. Copy a complete exercise to the clipboard, and then move it to a new location, and confirm no false "incomplete"
    Regression testing:
  3. Create a complete exercise in the edit modal. After successfully passing validations/checks within the modal, after saving and closing, it should not update to now be marked as incomplete in the tree view
  4. Create a complete exercise. After doing so, open a quick edit modal within the tree view and add some additional metadata.

Does this introduce any tech-debt items?

Well, there probably needs to be some general cleanup of a lot of how these validations are working.... and this feels pretty brittle.


Reviewer guidance

How can a reviewer test these changes?

Are there any risky areas that deserve extra testing?

References

Fixes #4747

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

…ot we need to check for completion - required within the EditModal for validations to work properly, but not in other quick edit options. previously was setting to false incorrectly due to assessmentItems validation failing when we hadn't loaded the data
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.

A couple of places where I don't think we do actually need to run the completeness check in the action.

As this is not changing existing behaviour, this is not blocking though.

The only blocker would be not setting complete at all in the case where we're not checking completeness.

assessmentItems: context.rootGetters['assessmentItem/getAssessmentItems'](id),
files: context.rootGetters['file/getContentNodeFiles'](id),
});
let complete = true;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If we're not checking complete, we should just not set this attribute at all, either true or false.

@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@
retryFailedCopy: withChangeTracker(function(changeTracker) {
this.updateContentNode({
id: this.nodeId,
checkComplete: true,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we probably don't need to check complete here either.

@@ -399,7 +399,11 @@

if (completeCheck !== node.complete) {
validationPromises.push(
vm.updateContentNode({ id: nodeId, complete: completeCheck })
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess technically, we don't need to rerun the complete check here, because we already ran it above?

@rtibbles rtibbles dismissed their stale review September 26, 2024 23:20

I addressed the blocking change.

Copy link
Member

@akolson akolson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Both code changes and manual QA check out. However, I discovered a minor bug that I will open in a separate issue. Thanks @marcellamaki @rtibbles

@akolson akolson merged commit 7bfe2ae into learningequality:unstable Sep 27, 2024
13 checks passed
@akolson akolson mentioned this pull request Sep 27, 2024
@pcenov
Copy link
Member

pcenov commented Sep 27, 2024

LGTM as well, have reported a minor console error issue here: #4763

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Unstable - Seeing the 'Incomplete' icon for an exercise
4 participants