fix: Rename builtin discussion provider, "edX" -> "Open edX"#2660
fix: Rename builtin discussion provider, "edX" -> "Open edX"#2660kdmccormick merged 4 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
|
@ormsbee , with your work on the discussions migration, do you have a sense of whether this rename is correct and/or know someone who might? |
|
Open EdX an Open EdX (legacy) feels more appropriate in my mind, plus one to this change overall as well. I don't know if the old UI is marked deprecated but it for sure should be legacy and even maybe not default configured. That's probably a separate DEPR conversation |
|
@kdmccormick i chose this naming convention back when my team at 2U was rolling out the discussions MFE and discussion sidebar (2022-23). I agree with you that:
|
|
Thanks @ayub02 , done. |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2660 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 94.83% 94.83%
=======================================
Files 1234 1234
Lines 27764 27764
Branches 6263 6283 +20
=======================================
Hits 26331 26331
Misses 1362 1362
Partials 71 71 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
agreed. I don't have the bandwidth to take on that level of change right now, but if anyone involved with the Discussions is reading this, please feel empowered to propose these changes! |
|
One bit of nuance on this is that the alternatives are third-party services and authors may not understand that they're running "Open edX" at all--they just know it by whatever the branding is on that particular instance. The choice that an author is making is, "Am I running the forums that are built into the LMS or am I using one of these third party services that I might already be familiar with?" From that perspective, I can see a case for using the site name. To be clear, I still think "edX" is the wrong thing here for the community as a whole. I think we should consider re-framing it more explicitly as "on-platform/built-in" vs. "third-party" forum services, though I'm not sure what the exact wording should be. |
5 participants
Description
It seems wrong that the default providers are called "edX" and "edX (New)".
This PR changes the UI-level provider names to "Open edX" and "Open edX (New)".Perhaps other names would be more appropriate. I'm open to any input from Product/UX here. I'm also not certain whether it's correct to have theopenedxprovider called "(New)", rather than calling thelegacyprovider "(Old)", but I'll leave that up to anyone with more context than I on the migration.[update based on Aamir's feedback] This PR changes the UI-level provider names to "Open edX (legacy)" and "Open edX".
The internal provider codenames,
legacyandopenedx, are unchanged.Supporting information
Before
After
Testing instructions
In tutor dev, this screen is visible at
http://apps.local.openedx.io:2001/authoring/course/{courseId}/pages-and-resources/discussion/settingsMerge constraints
No particular urgency, but I'll backport this to Ulmo if it lands in time.
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:
.ts,.tsx).propTypesanddefaultPropsin any new or modified code.src/testUtils.tsx(specificallyinitializeMocks)apiHooks.tsin this repo for examples.messages.tsfiles have adescriptionfor translators to use.../in import paths. To import from parent folders, use@src, e.g.import { initializeMocks } from '@src/testUtils';instead offrom '../../../../testUtils'