feat: compare library component versions

[navinkarkera]

Description

Add entry-level version preview from history log for library components.

Users can now open Show this version from history entries and view old/new versions in side-by-side comparison modal.

Container entries (section/subsection/unit, including legacy chapter/sequential/vertical) are explicitly excluded from component diff modal actions.

Screenshots:

Useful information to include:

• Which user roles will this change impact? "Course Author".

Change summary generated by AI

1) History log actions + compare modal

• Added entry action menu (More actions) in HistoryLogGroup for non-container items.
• Added Show this version action per history entry.
• Added new HistoryCompareChangesModal component:
  • Modal title: Preview changes: {title}
  • Item icon in title
  • Uses CompareChangesWidget in side-by-side mode
  • Done button closes modal
• Wired itemId through draft/publish groups and log pages so each entry knows entity key.

2) Container detection utilities

• Added isContainerType(containerType) in src/generic/key-utils.ts.
• Added isContainerUsageKey(usageKey) in src/generic/key-utils.ts.
• Handles both current and legacy container names:
  • section/subsection/unit
  • chapter/sequential/vertical

3) Compare widget enhancements

• CompareChangesWidget now supports:
  • sideBySide mode
  • optional showTitle
• Side-by-side layout uses Paragon Card + Stack and renders two previews at once.
• Tabbed behavior remains for non-side-by-side flow.

4) LibraryBlock preview behavior

• Added addHeight?: number prop to LibraryBlock.
• Iframe height now uses iframeHeight + addHeight.
• If version === 0, component returns null (prevents invalid preview render).

5) Data model updates

• Extended LibraryHistoryEntry with:
  • oldVersion?: number
  • newVersion?: number

6) i18n messages

Added new history-log messages:

• previewChangesTitle
• moreActions
• showThisVersion
• doneButton

Supporting information

• Library Object History Log: View Previous Change State #2809
• Private-ref: https://tasks.opencraft.com/browse/FAL-4332
• Depends on backend PR: feat(content-libraries): include version numbers in history entries [FC-0123] openedx-platform#38481

Testing instructions

1. Open library component page with history log entries.
2. Expand draft history group.
3. Click More actions on entry.
4. Click Show this version.
5. Verify modal opens with title Preview changes: <component title> and correct icon.
6. Verify side-by-side old/new previews render.
7. Click Done and verify modal closes.
8. Repeat from publish history group entry.
9. Open container history log (unit/section/subsection).
10. Verify More actions is not shown for container entries.

Other information

Include anything else that will help reviewers and consumers understand the change.

• Does this change depend on other changes elsewhere?
• Any special concerns or limitations? For example: deprecations, migrations, security, or accessibility.

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, @navinkarkera!

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.

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 97.22222% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 95.52%. Comparing base (da4e81b) to head (bf0d7ea).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rc/library-authoring/LibraryBlock/LibraryBlock.tsx	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️
...generic/history-log/HistoryCompareChangesModal.tsx	94.73%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #2986    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage   95.52%   95.52%            
========================================
  Files        1392     1393     +1     
  Lines       32911    32967    +56     
  Branches     7340     7592   +252     
========================================
+ Hits        31437    31491    +54     
+ Misses       1419     1408    -11     
- Partials       55       68    +13     

☔ 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.

[rpenido]

Hi @navinkarkera!
The preview is always showing the same Published version on both sides, in all cases for me.

[rpenido]

I don't have these fields in my objects.

{
  "contributor": {
    "username": "edx",
    "profileImageUrls": {
      "full": "http://studio.local.openedx.io:8001/static/studio/images/profiles/default_500.png",
      "large": "http://studio.local.openedx.io:8001/static/studio/images/profiles/default_120.png",
      "medium": "http://studio.local.openedx.io:8001/static/studio/images/profiles/default_50.png",
      "small": "http://studio.local.openedx.io:8001/static/studio/images/profiles/default_30.png"
    }
  },
  "changedAt": "2026-04-29T20:57:07Z",
  "title": "Text",
  "itemType": "html",
  "action": "edited"
}

I'm using master from edx-platform since openedx/openedx-platform#38178 was merged.

[rpenido]

LGTM 👍
Thank you for your work, @navinkarkera!

• I tested this using the instructions from the PR
• I read through the code
• I checked for accessibility issues
• Includes documentation

[ChrisChV]

@navinkarkera Looks good. 👍 I commented on a nit.

[ChrisChV]

Per OEP-68, it is necessary to rename this to itemKey