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: revert code due to wrong merge conflict resolution #824

Merged

Conversation

rpenido
Copy link
Contributor

@rpenido rpenido commented Feb 6, 2024

Description

The #799 PR inadvertently reverted the code change from #815. This PR adds the code from #815 again.

Testing instructions

Setup:

  1. Create test taxonomies, tags, orgs, and courses with https://github.com/open-craft/taxonomy-sample-data/
  2. Run this PR's branch for course authoring.

Testing Tag Drawer:

  1. Login to Studio as a non-superuser with course authoring permissions.
  2. Visit the Sample Taxonomy Course course-v1:SampleTaxonomyOrg1+STC1+2023_1
  3. Navigate to a Unit
  4. Click "Manage Tags", either from the sidebar or the unit's menu
  5. Add a bunch of tags at various hierarchy levels, and ensure they add as expected.
  6. Delete some tags and ensure they delete as expected.

@openedx-webhooks
Copy link

Thanks for the pull request, @rpenido! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

Feel free to add as much of the following information to the ticket as you can:

  • supporting documentation
  • Open edX discussion forum threads
  • timeline information ("this must be merged by XX date", and why that is)
  • partner information ("this is a course on edx.org")
  • any other information that can help Product understand the context for the PR

All technical communication about the code itself will be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green.

@openedx-webhooks openedx-webhooks added the open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U label Feb 6, 2024
@rpenido rpenido requested a review from xitij2000 February 6, 2024 20:23
@rpenido rpenido force-pushed the rpenido/fix-revert-wrong-merge branch from 08a97a5 to 39dde60 Compare February 6, 2024 20:27
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 6, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (815ddbe) 90.77% compared to head (39dde60) 90.78%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #824      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.77%   90.78%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         535      535              
  Lines        9255     9255              
  Branches     1991     1991              
==========================================
+ Hits         8401     8402       +1     
+ Misses        829      828       -1     
  Partials       25       25              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@xitij2000 xitij2000 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tested, works fine.

@xitij2000 xitij2000 merged commit a318c32 into openedx:master Feb 8, 2024
6 checks passed
@openedx-webhooks
Copy link

@rpenido 🎉 Your pull request was merged! Please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.

@xitij2000 xitij2000 deleted the rpenido/fix-revert-wrong-merge branch February 8, 2024 16:18
@rpenido
Copy link
Contributor Author

rpenido commented Feb 8, 2024

Thank you @xitij2000 !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants