feat: Add units dict to index [FC-0083] - #36650
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, @ChrisChV! This repository is currently maintained by 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 approvalIf you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.
🔘 Provide contextTo 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:
🔘 Get a green buildIf one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green. DetailsWhere 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: 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:
💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR. |
| "units": { | ||
| "display_name": ["Unit A", "Unit B"], | ||
| "key": ["UNIT_A", "UNIT_B"], | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer a structure like
"units": [
{ "display_name": "Unit A", "key": "UNIT_A"},
{ "display_name": "Unit B", "key": "UNIT_B"},
]
but it is ok to leave it as it is, to make it consistent with the "collections".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I followed the "collections" format
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can't remember what it was, but there had to be a reason why we used that format for collections?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't remember well. @navinkarkera, could you help us with that question since you implemented #35600?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a thread.. it's not something we need to worry about at this moment @navinkarkera @ChrisChV 😄
navinkarkera
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ChrisChV Looks good! 👍
- I tested this: (verified units data in index)
- I read through the code
- I checked for accessibility issues
- Includes documentation
|
2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX staging environment in preparation for a release to production. |
|
2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX production environment. |
1 similar comment
|
2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX production environment. |
* Adds the units dict to the component search documents. * Send CONTENT_OBJECT_ASSOCIATIONS_CHANGED signal when add/remove components in units.
Description
unitsdict to the component search documents.CONTENT_OBJECT_ASSOCIATIONS_CHANGEDsignal when add/remove components in units.Supporting information
Testing instructions
Deadline
ASAP
Other information
N/A