feat: handle file content logic when creating next component version

[Ian2012]

Description

This PR updates create_next_component_version to handle raw bytes and content.pk logic to add assets. Closes #241

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @Ian2012!

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.

[ormsbee]

Just a small handful of requests. Thank you!

[ormsbee]

@pomegranited: This PR looks good to me, but I'm not sure how we want to handle the version bump here. I'm also going to be out on Monday and Tuesday. If you have time, may I trouble you to please help @Ian2012 land this on Monday?

If not, it's not currently blocking work, so I can merge it when I get back on Wed.

Thank you!

[pomegranited]

👍 Works perfectly, thank you for this PR @Ian2012 !

I left a couple of comments re documentation for your consideration.

Could you also please push a version bump? That'll let me tag a new release after merging here.

• I tested this using the updated management command:

  # Add file content to component
  app@928f6499df93:~/edx-platform$ ./manage.py cms add_assets_to_component lib:OpenCraft:lib2 xblock.v1:video:256f985c-89ea-49c5-9452-b52329b1bdf5 "static/avo1.jpg:/mnt/openedx-learning/avo1.jpg"
   Created v4 of xblock.v1:video:256f985c-89ea-49c5-9452-b52329b1bdf5 (eb225b73-f886-488f-8ceb-2b8108c3a85e):
  - block.xml (fe0222e8-9271-4b13-823f-c382a226ef5f)
  - static/avo1.jpg (ee6f6c25-9f1b-4044-9008-a534122ba343)
  # Remove added file from component
  app@928f6499df93:~/edx-platform$ ./manage.py cms add_assets_to_component lib:OpenCraft:lib2 xblock.v1:video:256f985c-89ea-49c5-9452-b52329b1bdf5 "static/avo1.jpg:"
  Created v5 of xblock.v1:video:256f985c-89ea-49c5-9452-b52329b1bdf5 (d8c3b2f3-07d2-4138-a73b-24147333f99e):
  - block.xml (4a66d2e7-3ab8-40a0-bc92-2f992e50b649)

• I read through the code
• I checked for accessibility issues N/A
• Includes documentation N/A
• User-facing strings are extracted for translation N/A

[pomegranited]

[non-blocking question] Since we're potentially doing multiple insert operations here, should this method wrap its contents in with atomic():? We have a few other api methods that do.

Would also be ok with updating the function docs to recommend wrapping the method call with atomic if passing content bytes in, since that's what the ticket did.

[ormsbee]

FWIW, this was an oversight on my part in the review. Whenever possible, my intent was for these API functions to be atomic, so that we don't get inconsistent half-writes to the database. (Inconsistent half-writes to the file store are harder to guard against, but I feel better about that since they're idempotent inserts storing file data by hash–so "do it again" results in the same thing and hopefully the worst thing we do is write some unreferenced data.)

[pomegranited]

@ormsbee should we do a follow-up PR to wrap this function in a transaction?

[Ian2012]

The full API operation is wrapped in an atomic block:

https://github.com/openedx/openedx-learning/blob/main/openedx_learning/apps/authoring/components/api.py#L180-L182

[ormsbee]

😄 Ah, that makes sense. Thank you!