feat: [FC-0074] add support for annotated python dicts as avro map type

[mariajgrimaldi]

Description

This PR supports Python dict types mapped to Avro Map type for avro schema generation, aiming to add support to a broader list of events payloads. This was previously attempted by mapping Python dicts -> records but this approach considers Python dicts -> maps to avoid conflicts with data attributes -> record mapping, also by using maps we avoid this kind of errors when we don't know the content of dictionaries:

This PR also refactors forum-related events so they can be sent through the event bus. Because of backward compatibility, those changes should be studied in a different PR but are here for testing simplicity.

Supporting information

This PR addresses #428 (comment)

Testing instructions

To test with the event bus:

1. Install this branch into your environment
2. Install an event bus backend like the redis implementation in the LMS
3. Create a tutor plugin with this configuration so the event is produced to redis:

from tutor import hooks

redis_config = [
    "EVENT_BUS_PRODUCER = 'edx_event_bus_redis.create_producer'",
    "EVENT_BUS_REDIS_CONNECTION_URL = 'redis://@redis:6379/'",
    "EVENT_BUS_TOPIC_PREFIX = 'dev'",
    "EVENT_BUS_CONSUMER = 'edx_event_bus_redis.RedisEventConsumer'",
]

event_bus_config = """
EVENT_BUS_PRODUCER_CONFIG = {
    'org.openedx.learning.forum.thread.created.v1': {
         'forum-thread-created': {'event_key_field': 'thread.id', 'enabled': True},
     },
     'org.openedx.learning.forum.thread.response.created.v1': {
         'forum-thread-response-created': {'event_key_field': 'thread.id', 'enabled': True},
     },
     'org.openedx.learning.forum.thread.response.comment.created.v1': {
         'forum-thread-response-comment-created': {'event_key_field': 'thread.id', 'enabled': True},
     },
}
"""

hooks.Filters.ENV_PATCHES.add_item(
    (
        "openedx-common-settings", event_bus_config
    )
)

You should see a log similar to this in the LMS:

Deadline

None

Other information

This was previously attempted here: but using record type instead of the map type: #232

Checklists

Check off if complete or not applicable:

Merge Checklist:

• All reviewers approved
• Reviewer tested the code following the testing instructions
• CI build is green
• Version bumped
• Changelog record added with short description of the change and current date
• Documentation updated (not only docstrings)
• Code dependencies reviewed
• Fixup commits are squashed away
• Unit tests added/updated
• Noted any: Concerns, dependencies, migration issues, deadlines, tickets

Post Merge:

• Create a tag
• Create a release on GitHub
• Check new version is pushed to PyPI after tag-triggered build is
  finished.
• Delete working branch (if not needed anymore)
• Upgrade the package in the Open edX platform requirements (if applicable)

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @mariajgrimaldi!

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/hooks-extension-framework. 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.

[Ian2012]

what about union types:

dict[str, Union[str, int]]: ...,

[mariajgrimaldi]

I added more test cases and this covers even more than I initially thought: a701f78. Thanks for the suggestion!

[Ian2012]

nit: remove code comments

[mariajgrimaldi]

I don't think that's commented code but an explanation of what arg_data_type is

[Ian2012]

Same here

[Ian2012]

Does this need to be changed?
Should this emit a FORUM_THREAD_CREATED_V2 signal?

I imagine this will break existing code

[mariajgrimaldi]

Oh yes, as I mentioned in the cover letter those changes are there for testing. That should be addressed in a follow up PR.

[Ian2012]

Some nits and concerns around changing existing code and some code cleanup

[felipemontoya]

The tradeoff of supporting dicts only when annotated seems completely fair to me.

I agree that the refactoring of the forum events should go in a separate PR. Do you think this needs that we bump the versioning of the events or are they backwards compatible?

[mariajgrimaldi]

I agree that the refactoring of the forum events should go in a separate PR. Do you think this needs that we bump the versioning of the events or are they backwards compatible?

I do think it's backwards compatible. We'd be affecting the event bus support, which we didn't have previously, so I think we're okay.

[bmtcril]

This looks great to me, but I haven't been in this code much so I'll refrain from thumbing it.

[mariajgrimaldi]

I'm tagging @robrap @timmc-edx for a review since they're more familiar with the event bus code. Can you help us out here? Do you think this looks reasonable?

[timmc-edx]

We're currently on break but should be able to review after Jan 6.