feat: wip pdf authoring

[Kelketek]

Description

This pull request adds PDF Authoring.

Visual Changes

Before

pdf-old-screencast.mp4

After

pdf-block-demo.mp4

Supporting information

https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/OEPM/pages/5335908397/Proposal+Add+PDF+Block+to+Base+Installation

Testing instructions

1. Follow the instructions in this repository's README to set up a dev environment for this block.
2. Use this branch of edx-platform to get the backend to signal to the frontend that the PDF block can be edited in the new MFE.
3. Use this version of xblocks-contrib to get the new data fetching endpoint
4. Add the PDF block to your course by adding "pdf" to the advanced modules list.
5. Add a PDF block
6. Configure the settings. Try to break it. Save. Edit. Save again. Try manually specifying a URL. Be creative :)

Other information

These changes create much more generalizable parallel functionality to some of the functionality which already exists but is mired in Redux. They're worth examining and may be used by the next developer looking to add official MFE editing support for another block.

Best Practices Checklist

We're trying to move away from some deprecated patterns in this codebase. Please
check if your PR meets these recommendations before asking for a review:

• Any new files are using TypeScript (.ts, .tsx).
• Avoid propTypes and defaultProps in any new or modified code.
• Tests should use the helpers in src/testUtils.tsx (specifically initializeMocks)
• Do not add new fields to the Redux state/store. Use React Context to share state among multiple components.
• Use React Query to load data from REST APIs. See any apiHooks.ts in this repo for examples.
• All new i18n messages in messages.ts files have a description for translators to use.
• Avoid using ../ in import paths. To import from parent folders, use @src, e.g. import { initializeMocks } from '@src/testUtils'; instead of from '../../../../testUtils'

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @Kelketek!

This repository is currently maintained by @bradenmacdonald.

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.

🔘 Update the status of your PR

Your PR is currently marked as a draft. After completing the steps above, update its status by clicking "Ready for Review", or removing "WIP" from the title, as appropriate.

---

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.92308% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 95.52%. Comparing base (4d7d91b) to head (e78610a).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/editors/utils/validators.ts	68.75%	5 Missing ⚠️
...rs/sharedComponents/CollapsibleFormWidget/index.ts	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...ainers/PdfEditor/components/PdfEditorContainer.tsx	88.88%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2916      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.51%   95.52%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1329     1349      +20     
  Lines       30557    30816     +259     
  Branches     6930     6965      +35     
==========================================
+ Hits        29186    29437     +251     
- Misses       1303     1323      +20     
+ Partials       68       56      -12     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[samuelallan72]

@Kelketek I tested this locally and found it worked as advertised, including testing with and without PDFXBLOCK_DISABLE_ALL_DOWNLOAD = True in openedx-platform settings. I've made some comments inline for consideration.

[samuelallan72]

This checkbox field is somewhat generic, and probably could go under src/editors/sharedComponents somewhere.

Also, there is an existing FormCheckbox; I'm not sure if that can simply be reused?

[Kelketek]

The existing one is part of the SelectableBox set. It appears to be deprecated? It doesn't support Formik, either, so it has a lot of manual machinery that has to be managed.

I'll see about putting it somewhere else.

[samuelallan72]

That's fair, I guessed it could be related to deprecated code. +1

[Kelketek]

Moved.

[samuelallan72]

I feel like "easy mode" is slightly confusing, although I'm not sure what it should be. Something for Cassie to look at in product review. :)

[Kelketek]

Changed it to "simple mode."

[samuelallan72]

Currently the file input behaviour here when you select a file using the "replace" button is:

• Immediately upload the new file to studio assets without confirmation. This means if you change your mind and pick a different file, or cancel the editor altogether, the file is still uploaded to studio assets.
• Ignore any previously uploaded file, leaving it in studio assets.

I don't think this behaviour matches user expectations or the expected meaning of "replace" here. I'm not sure what would be best, but some inline information to explain the behaviour, and/or changing the behaviour, might be helpful here. Eg. adding a warning about how uploads work and where they're uploaded to, and maybe only performing the upload when the editor is saved?

[Kelketek]

@samuelallan72 This behavior matches the behavior of the video handout upload field. While I agree that the auto-upload could be surprising, I believe the reason for it makes sense here based on the following:

1. The 'save' button isn't something the block can capture and modify the behavior of. That machinery is outside of the editor's control.
2. The only way to determine the URL value for the field is to have performed the upload, so it must be done before the user hits save.
3. No other field on a block editor requires an additional extra save action. Users expect that hitting 'save' saves everything they've done, and if they forget to hit an additional 'upload' button, they may think things broke.

One way that this field departs from the Handout widget is that there is no 'delete handout' equivalent, because the URL is a required field. Even when you select that option, though, it only sets the field 'null' and doesn't remove the file from the course assets.

[samuelallan72]

Thanks @Kelketek , that makes sense.

Perhaps just adding some informational text next to the field so users aren't surprised by the behaviour.

[samuelallan72]

The 'save' button isn't something the block can capture and modify the behavior of. That machinery is outside of the editor's control.

Ah this must be different to the legacy studio editor views then? As I was reminded of for BB-10556, in the branching xblock, we do override the save method.

[Kelketek]

@samuelallan72 Yep, it's different. The state management and callbacks are all centralized in the redux definitions. All of the editors take the same path after the save button is hit, with a big if chain changing how the data is massaged before hitting the endpoint.

By contrast, the XBlocks loaded in the legacy view set up their own save buttons and handlers not connected to the redux code, and send a signal to close when they're done.

I'll add a blurb warning the user.

[samuelallan72]

Some notes on how I set things up locally for testing this PR along with openedx/openedx-platform#38148 and openedx/xblocks-contrib#193 , since there were several steps.
A rough reconstruction of the commands:

# my master devstack with master branch of edx-platform mounted
cd devstack-master
cd edx-platform
git remote update
git checkout fox/pdf-editor
cd ..

g c git@github.com:openedx/frontend-app-authoring
cd frontend-app-authoring
g remote add opencraft git@github.com:open-craft/frontend-app-authoring
git remote update
git checkout fox/pdf-authoring
cd ..
tutor mounts add ./frontend-app-authoring/

tutor images build mfe
tutor images build openedx-dev
tutor dev launch -I

# install xblocks-contrib into the cms and lms environment.
# It must be done this way due it being a core requirement of openedx-platform (ie. it cannot be in the pip extra requirements)(?).
tutor dev exec cms pip install -e git+https://github.com/open-craft/xblocks-contrib.git@fox/pdf-struct-return#egg=xblocks_contrib
tutor dev exec lms pip install -e git+https://github.com/open-craft/xblocks-contrib.git@fox/pdf-struct-return#egg=xblocks_contrib

tutor dev stop
tutor dev launch -I

# not sure how this works, but authoring needs to be running locally (otherwise it's just a blank page for me...)
tutor dev stop authoring
cd frontend-app-authoring
npm ci
npm run dev

Waffle flag

for the legacy_studio.pdf_editor waffle flag editing, visit http://studio.local.openedx.io:8001/admin/waffle/flag/

This flag didn't work for me.

Testing the frontend

• import the demo course, or make a new course
• add "pdf" to the advanced components list
• add a pdf component and play with it. :)

Testing globally disabling the pdf download button

I used this single-file tutor plugin:

from tutor import hooks

hooks.Filters.ENV_PATCHES.add_item(
    (
        "openedx-common-settings",
        "PDFXBLOCK_DISABLE_ALL_DOWNLOAD = True"
    )
)

And did

tutor dev stop
tutor dev launch -I

(This worked fine.)

[cassiezamparini]

@Kelketek This is looking great! I have a couple of questions from a UX perspective, mostly to understand the intention a bit better:

• Default PDF on creation: When adding a new PDF XBlock, there’s already a file attached by default. Do you know where this file comes from? I initially expected a blank state where I upload my own file. I know this is a common Open edX pattern, but I’ve never really questioned it before, and I found it a bit confusing in this context.

• “Source document URL”: Is this field optional, and what’s the intended use case? If I’ve already uploaded a PDF, I wasn’t sure why I would also include a URL, is it mainly for referencing an original or editable version? If that’s the case, maybe it would be clearer to separate this from “Download options” and make the intent a bit more explicit.

[Kelketek]

@cassiezamparini

Default PDF on creation: When adding a new PDF XBlock, there’s already a file attached by default. Do you know where this file comes from? I initially expected a blank state where I upload my own file. I know this is a common Open edX pattern, but I’ve never really questioned it before, and I found it a bit confusing in this context.

This file is the default of the PDF XBlock, and predates this MR. It links to this PDF: https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/pdf/Trig_Cheat_Sheet.pdf . You can learn more about the document by reading the home page: https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/

Removing it is an option but would expand the scope, since it would mean changing the behavior of the block to accommodate not having the field set and giving the user reasonable feedback about it. I think that's a reasonable improvement, but I'd like to suggest it not be part of this PR.

“Source document URL”: Is this field optional, and what’s the intended use case? If I’ve already uploaded a PDF, I wasn’t sure why I would also include a URL, is it mainly for referencing an original or editable version? If that’s the case, maybe it would be clearer to separate this from “Download options” and make the intent a bit more explicit.

The source document URL is optional, and is there to give you the source the PDF is from, which might be a Powerpoint, Word Document, or other editable and/or accessible format. If we remove this from Download options, we should also remove Source Button Text, which sets the text of the source download link (perhaps it should be called 'source link text' since the source 'button' appears to just be a link when rendered, but that's what the previous version called it.)

That would leave only one option in download options, whether you can download at all. However, that toggle also implies whether you can download the source version, too, which is why they're in a group. When unchecking the 'allow download' button, the source fields disable, as they won't be used. There's no point in providing a source if you're not even providing the rendered document.

If you'd like an alternative arrangement (or maybe, an alternative label for the "Download Options" group?), please let me know what you think would work best.

[cassiezamparini]

@Kelketek

Removing it is an option but would expand the scope, since it would mean changing the behavior of the block to accommodate not having the field set and giving the user reasonable feedback about it. I think that's a reasonable improvement, but I'd like to suggest it not be part of this PR.

Noted, and agreed. Let's look at this in future.

I mocked up a version to improve clarity and flow. If these changes don’t fit within budget, I think the most impactful improvement would be updating the labels and helper text.

1. I've moved the labels above fields, making things easier to understand before interacting. We've done this with other XBlocks.
2. I've moved the helper text above fields, which explains what’s needed before users enter anything.
3. I've removed “Download options” heading as all fields are related.
4. I've moved the Source File URL above the Source File Button text
5. I've removed the collapsible sections. With such a few fields, keeping everything visible is simpler and reduces friction.

[Kelketek]

@cassiezamparini and cc @samuelallan72

Here's the revised interface, based on both of your feedback:

pdf-authoring-revised.mp4

[Kelketek]

@samuelallan72 This is ready for review now. Thanks!