fix: Update ObjectTagView and ObjectTagCountsView to accept complex objectIds

[marslanabdulrauf]

Current:
The current approach is to save the id of the content through a generic string, so that the tag can be linked to any type of content, no matter what type of ID have. For example, with this approach we can link standalone blocks and library blocks, both on Denver (v3) and Blockstore Content Libraries (v2).

Issue:
With complex object_id e.g; course-v1:MIT+lt101.1+101.1 which is a acceptable format, django resolver is throwing 404

What this PR does?
This PR is adding a regex for object_id lookup field value in ObjectTagView and ObjectTagCountsView to make it accept special characters specially those which are common in openedx course creation

Before:

After:

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @marslanabdulrauf!

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 @axim-engineering. 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]

Hi @marslanabdulrauf, thank you for this contribution! Please let me know if you have any questions re: submitting a CLA form. Thanks!

[pdpinch]

@mphilbrick211 -- @marslanabdulrauf is working for MIT on this PR and he should be covered by the MIT entity agreement. I've just added him to the MITx Staff and GitHub details google sheet.

[Ian2012]

Hi @marslanabdulrauf can you add tests for both scenarios?

[marslanabdulrauf]

yeah sure @Ian2012

[Ian2012]

@ormsbee Do you want to take a look at this one?

[ormsbee]

@Ian2012: Please don't block on my review. But if you're asking me to be another reviewer, I can do that–but I probably won't get to it until Monday.

[Ian2012]

@marslanabdulrauf quality tests are failing. I can merge once CI passes.

[Ian2012]

@marslanabdulrauf Once it's bumped, it's good to go.

[marslanabdulrauf]

@Ian2012 I am unclear, how much time this might take ?
Additionally, we need this for the Open edX Sumac release. Will we create a patch version specifically for Sumac, or will we bump the version in master and then backport it to Sumac?

Current status at the time of writing:

• Latest version/tag: 0.18.0 (This version is not being used yet)
• edx-platform:
  • master -> 0.17.0
  • sumac -> 0.16.1

[Ian2012]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I want you to bump the version to merge and release it. I think we can merge it to master and upgrade the version, the current changes on openedx-learning are not breaking. cc @ormsbee

[marslanabdulrauf]

Hi @Ian2012,
Thanks for merging the PR! I noticed that we cannot directly bump its version for SUMAC, as it relies on the learner_downloadable field, which was removed in the latest version of openedx-learning.
To address this issue, we discussed a few options:

1. Backport the change to the 0.16.x branch and release a 0.16.2 version of the library for SUMAC
2. Update SUMAC to handle the absence of learner_downloadable while back-porting this

Would you be open to rolling out a 0.16.2 release with the backported change? If not, could we explore how best to align with SUMAC release with the latest openedx-learning?

Let me know your thoughts or if you'd like us to assist further.

Thanks again!

[Ian2012]

We already performed this change on edx-platform: openedx/edx-platform#35788, and openedx-learning it's already on v0.18.0 on edx-platform: https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/blob/open-release/sumac.master/requirements/edx/base.txt#L828

[marslanabdulrauf]

Hi @Ian2012,

I checked and noticed that sumac is currently using version 0.18.0 of openedx-learning, while this change is included in the latest version 0.18.1.

Could you confirm how we should proceed to ensure compatibility?

[Ian2012]

Please create a PR with the version bump of openedx-learning on edx-platform, then you can post it to the wg-build-test-release slack channel to discuss it