Discussion service to enable permission and access provider

[salman2013]

Description

In edx-platform discussion 's specific permissions and discussion 's provider settings are managing with django models which are difficult to manage in discussion block extraction.
Ref: Discussion permissions
https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/blob/5b1951228efca6afe0a3f18837236bd797cfadf4/lms/djangoapps/discussion/django_comment_client/permissions.py#L20

https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/blob/5b1951228efca6afe0a3f18837236bd797cfadf4/openedx/core/djangoapps/django_comment_common/models.py#L163

Ref: DiscussionProvider
https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/blob/5b1951228efca6afe0a3f18837236bd797cfadf4/openedx/core/djangoapps/discussions/models.py#L408

https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/blob/5b1951228efca6afe0a3f18837236bd797cfadf4/openedx/core/djangoapps/discussions/models.py#L37

In this PR we created a service DiscussionConfig with the required methods to get the permissions and provider settings, added the service in runtime so that it can be easily accessible in xblocks-contrib.

Ticket: openedx/public-engineering#481

Acceptance Criteria

• Discussion block UI and functionality should be functional.
• All test should be green

How to test

1. Enable Discussion xblock

    tutor plugins install forum
    tutor plugins enable forum
    tutor dev do init -l forum
   

2. There are two types of provider (openedx, legacy) to load the discussion block. We can set these provider in Discussions/Discussions configurations in django admin.
3. Set the provider to legacy.
4. Add discussion xblock in studio from components.
5. Test the discussion xblock functionality and UI on LMS.

Testing Results

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @salman2013!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/wg-maintenance-edx-platform.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are 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.

Details

---

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.

[farhan]

user_has_permission
seems better

[kdmccormick]

@kdmccormick - as discussed in the meeting I will follow up with Dave on whether this should be in the UserService or stay here

[kdmccormick]

@salman2013 After reading the code more myself, I think your approach is great. The has_permission check is not a general check--it is particular to discussions permissions. All the values of permission that you can pass in are like vote_for_comment, delete_comment`, and so on. So, I think it makes sense to keep this method in the new DiscussionConfigService.

Just two requests:

• Please clarify in the docstring that this method only applies to discussion permissions, not permissions in general.
• Please move the definition of has_permission from lms/djangoapps/discussion/django_comment_client/permissions.py over to openedx/core/djangoapps/django_comment_common/models.py. This way, the DiscussionConfigService can use the original definition without having to import from the lms code tree, which as you mentioned was causing an importlinter failure.

FYI @feanil

[open-craft-grove]

Sandbox deployment successful 🚀
🎓 LMS
📝 Studio
ℹ️ Grove Config, Tutor Config, Tutor Requirements