Cbe assessment criteria versioning adr

[mgwozdz-unicon]

No description provided.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @mgwozdz-unicon!

This repository is currently maintained by @axim-engineering.

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.

[bradenmacdonald]

If we're not going fully versioned (via PublishableEntity) for now, I would recommend at the least that you add the HistoricalRecords() model from django-simple-history, which is a well-established pattern used by many other parts of the LMS/CMS to preserve historical data. It's basically just one line of code and then you get a complete auditable record of all changes to the data, so I don't think there's much downside.

[mgwozdz-unicon]

If we're not going fully versioned (via PublishableEntity) for now, I would recommend at the least that you add the HistoricalRecords() model from django-simple-history, which is a well-established pattern used by many other parts of the LMS/CMS to preserve historical data. It's basically just one line of code and then you get a complete auditable record of all changes to the data, so I don't think there's much downside.

This is a great idea. I updated the ADR accordingly.

[ormsbee]

FWIW, one of the issues that comes up around grading from time to time is the principle that someone should keep the grade that they saw themselves get, regardless of what changes the course team makes, unless that change was necessary to correct a bug (and often not even then). So the equivalent in competencies might be to make sure that by default we don't remove someone's competency because an author made some changes to how those competencies are earned.

Is it safe to assume that just preserving the timestamp they earned the competency would be sufficient to later reconstruct the state of the how the assessment criteria/grouping was defined at that point?