refactor: Replace ProctorTrack references with Generic Checks by arbirali · Pull Request #2645 · openedx/frontend-app-authoring

arbirali · 2025-11-13T11:02:23Z

Description

This pull request removes frontend-level handling of the ProctorTrack proctoring provider from the frontend-app-authoring application.

As part of the broader ProctorTrack deprecation effort (openedx/edx-platform#36329
), the backend now provides generic proctoring configuration rules instead of vendor-specific conditions. The frontend has been updated to rely on these generic rules while still performing client-side validation.

By removing the ProctorTrack-specific logic and using the backend’s generic configuration model, this change keeps frontend-app-authoring aligned with current backend behavior and avoids relying on deprecated vendor-specific handling.

Supporting information

This change depends on backend updates described in openedx/edx-platform#36329, which provide generic proctoring configuration rules that the frontend now uses instead of ProctorTrack-specific checks.

Best Practices Checklist

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'

mlabeeb03 · 2025-11-13T11:26:13Z

@kdmccormick Please take a look. @arbirali will update test cases shortly. Also note that we have not removed the zendesk part because it is being done here: #2517
There may be a need for rebase later, just FYI.

kdmccormick

A couple notes, but otherwise the approach looks good.

kdmccormick · 2025-11-13T19:21:45Z

          setSubmissionInProgress(false);
          setCourseStartDate(settingsResponse.data.course_start_date);
          setAvailableProctoringProviders(settingsResponse.data.available_proctoring_providers);
+          setAllowedProctoringEscalationEmail(settingsResponse.data.requires_escalation_email_providers);


For consistency, could we call it setRequiresEscalationEmailProviders ?

setAllowedProctoringEscalationEmail renamed to setRequiresEscalationEmailProviders for consistency.

kdmccormick · 2025-11-13T19:28:38Z


-      if (value === 'proctortrack') {
+      if (allowedProctoringEscalationEmail.includes(value)) {
        setFormValues({ ...newFormValues, createZendeskTickets: false });


Suggested change

setFormValues({ ...newFormValues, createZendeskTickets: false });

setFormValues({ ...newFormValues });

Since the zendesk integration is deprecated, it's safe to just remove createZendeskTickets from here.

createZendeskTickets is removed now.

codecov · 2025-11-24T14:00:36Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.85%. Comparing base (e10ab27) to head (e439cbe).
⚠️ Report is 24 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2645      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.82%   94.85%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1231     1232       +1     
  Lines       27629    27870     +241     
  Branches     6221     6304      +83     
==========================================
+ Hits        26199    26436     +237     
- Misses       1359     1363       +4     
  Partials       71       71

☔ 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.

kdmccormick

Thanks @arbirali . The code looks good.

Some of the PR description is not quite right. We are still doing client-side validation. What has changed is: before, we were explicitly checking for the Proctortrak provider, but now, we are using generic proctoring configuration settings. Can you modify your PR description?

Once openedx/openedx-platform#37576 has merged, then I'll test this, approve it, and merge.

kdmccormick · 2025-11-25T14:47:31Z

@arbirali @mlabeeb03 , could you please provide screenshots to show that you have manually verified that this change and the backend change work together? Please test all the scenarios:

A provider with "requires_escalation_email": True
A provider with "requires_escalation_email": False
A provider that does not specify "requires_escalation_email"(should default to False)
A provider with "show_review_rules": True
A provider with "show_review_rules": False
A provider that does not specify "show_review_rules"(should default to True)
The null provider
The lti_external provider
A course with an unrecognized provider (You make this happen by importing a course which specifies a provider that isn't installed into the system. You can create the import file by either (a) exporting it from a different instance which does have that provider, or (b) hand-editing the proctoring provider field in the .tar.gz .

Let me know if you're unsure of how to test any of those points or if you think any of them are infeasible/unnecessary to test.

mlabeeb03 · 2025-11-26T11:06:38Z

@kdmccormick

A provider with "requires_escalation_email": True

A provider with "requires_escalation_email": False

A provider with "requires_escalation_email" not defined at all

4, 5, 6) No changes to the show_review_rules are being made in this PR.

A null provider

I am unable to set up an lti_provider, do you have instructions on how to do so? We only need to do a bare minimum setup that allows us the test the requires_escalation_email functionality.
A course with unrecognized provider. Note that I did it be defining a recognized provider and the removing it from the proctoring backend

kdmccormick · 2025-11-26T17:24:47Z

(1-3) Great ✅

(4-6) Right, my mistake. Is it the case that show_review_rules was purely a backend change? If so, then @mlabeeb03 can you provide some testing screenshots at some point to show that the backend changes has been validated?

(7) Great ✅

(8) I'll take a look. I think 2U is well-positioned to test lti_external. I'll ping them and cc you.

(9) Great ✅

mlabeeb03 · 2025-11-26T17:36:16Z

@kdmccormick I tested the show_review_rules by directly looking at the API response and writing test cases. I was unable to find it on the frontend. If you can tell me where to find it that would be great.

kdmccormick · 2025-11-26T17:43:50Z

@mlabeeb03 The review rules are configurable on the actual proctored exam subsection, rather than the course-wide proctoring settings page. Check out this doc, which mentions the Review Rules field: https://docs.openedx.org/en/latest/educators/how-tos/proctored_exams/create_proctored_exam_rpnow.html . The doc is specific to the RPNow provider, but I think the same flow should apply for any provider where show_review_rules is true. And for a provider where show_review_rules is false, the Review Rules field should be hidden.

mlabeeb03 · 2025-11-27T08:17:14Z

@kdmccormick thanks, PFA the screenshots, I've also verified the return value from the API.

show_review_rules: True | Null

show_review_rules: False

kdmccormick · 2025-11-28T19:08:02Z

great! thank you for validating that @mlabeeb03 .

Just a few leftovers from: #2645 Full context: openedx/openedx-platform#36329

arbirali marked this pull request as draft November 13, 2025 11:02

kdmccormick self-requested a review November 13, 2025 16:26

kdmccormick requested changes Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

arbirali force-pushed the proctortrack-depr branch 2 times, most recently from cc5c9ec to d488223 Compare November 17, 2025 11:06

arbirali marked this pull request as ready for review November 18, 2025 12:52

arbirali added 2 commits November 23, 2025 17:30

refactor: Proctortrack Deprecated

5b3245d

refactor: Proctortrack Deprecated

fbc4c0b

taimoor-ahmed-1 force-pushed the proctortrack-depr branch from f61c46a to fbc4c0b Compare November 23, 2025 12:33

feat: fix unit tests

e439cbe

mlabeeb03 requested a review from kdmccormick November 24, 2025 15:19

kdmccormick mentioned this pull request Nov 24, 2025

chore: Refactor proctoring provider handling in Settings #2494

Closed

kdmccormick reviewed Nov 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

kdmccormick added create-sandbox open-craft-grove should create a sandbox environment from this PR and removed create-sandbox open-craft-grove should create a sandbox environment from this PR labels Nov 25, 2025

kdmccormick mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2025

[DEPR]: edx-proctoring-proctortrack and create_zendesk_tickets openedx/openedx-platform#36329

Closed

17 tasks

kdmccormick self-requested a review November 26, 2025 13:54

kdmccormick approved these changes Nov 26, 2025

View reviewed changes

kdmccormick merged commit fa562a6 into openedx:master Nov 26, 2025
8 checks passed

kdmccormick changed the title ~~refactor: Proctortrack Deprecated~~ refactor: Replace ProctorTrack references with Generic Checks Nov 26, 2025

kdmccormick mentioned this pull request Nov 26, 2025

feat: remove "Create Zendesk Tickets for suspicious attempts" setting from Proctored Exam Settings #2517

Merged

kdmccormick mentioned this pull request Dec 11, 2025

fix: Generalize a couple remaining Proctortrack references #2746

Merged

kdmccormick added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 11, 2025

fix: Generalize a couple remaining Proctortrack references (#2746)

67a5694

Just a few leftovers from: #2645 Full context: openedx/openedx-platform#36329

	setFormValues({ ...newFormValues, createZendeskTickets: false });
	setFormValues({ ...newFormValues });

Conversation

arbirali commented Nov 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Supporting information

Best Practices Checklist

Uh oh!

mlabeeb03 commented Nov 13, 2025

Uh oh!

kdmccormick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kdmccormick Nov 13, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

arbirali Nov 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kdmccormick Nov 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

arbirali Nov 14, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Nov 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

kdmccormick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kdmccormick commented Nov 25, 2025

Uh oh!

mlabeeb03 commented Nov 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kdmccormick commented Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mlabeeb03 commented Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

kdmccormick commented Nov 26, 2025

Uh oh!

mlabeeb03 commented Nov 27, 2025

Uh oh!

kdmccormick commented Nov 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

arbirali commented Nov 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

kdmccormick Nov 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Nov 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mlabeeb03 commented Nov 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading