docs: [FC-0074] add more detailed docs on filters

[mariajgrimaldi]

Description

This PR improves the concept section of the documentation by adding a new document dedicated only to Open edX Filters.

Initially, I also added two additional modifications:

1. Update references in the Hooks Extension Framework document and explain why the framework should be adopted.
2. Adding a new document comparing Open edX Events vs Filters to ease adoption.

Which I later dropped in favor of centralizing shared documentation docs.openedx.org and avoiding duplication across repos: So I'll be moving those docs to docs.openedx.org, Here's the PR for the implementation: openedx/docs.openedx.org#599

For more details on the decision, please see this thread.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @mariajgrimaldi!

What's next?

Please work through the following steps to get your changes 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.

🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:

Who will review my changes?

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/hooks-extension-framework. Tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for review.

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.

[mariajgrimaldi]

@sarina @Apgomeznext: here's the WIP I've been working on for the 1.1 Improve Definitions and Update Outdated References in the Framework project feature.

I discussed with AnaP having feedback loops within the maintenance team about the documents' content. She'd get involved to review the document structure once she has the capacity for the project. So, early feedback is welcome.

[sarina]

@mariajgrimaldi thanks for sharing. I did a quick skim, it looks like it's off to a good start. Regarding duplicating documentation, I would strongly recommend against this. I would make a centralized document, and link to that as needed.

[mariajgrimaldi]

Thank you, @sarina. I agree we should solve this duplication of documents, so I moved some of these documents to a subsection of Concepts and Guides in the docs.openedx.org docs: openedx/edx-platform#35733. That PR references documents from each event and filters repos. My only concern is that leaving the docs there suggests the framework is edx-platform scoped when it's not. Would a single repo for the shared definitions of the framework be possible?

[sarina]

@mariajgrimaldi why not put the shared docs in https://github.com/openedx/docs.openedx.org ?

[mariajgrimaldi]

@sarina -- I thought about adding it here. It would have been something like OEP-50 Overview. We wouldn't have the misconception that the framework is edx-platform scoped, but it felt randomly placed.

So now that you mentioned it, I tried digging more into the docs sections and found this: https://docs.openedx.org/en/latest/developers/references/developer_guide/extending_platform/index.html. However, the extensions listed there are more content-focused, not like those listed here: https://docs.openedx.org/projects/edx-platform/en/latest/concepts/extension_points.html, where folder where I'm currently adding the documents. This is entirely out of this project's scope, but should we move those extension points to docs.openedx.org?

For the time being, I'll move the hooks docs from edx-platform to the Extending the Open edX Platform section.

[sarina]

@mariajgrimaldi the Developers Guide on the docs site isn't in Diataxis format, so I wouldn't add more to it. I think adding a Concept doc makes sense. You could link to the Concept doc in the Developer's Guide as well, but I think it'll be more visible/easier to find as a Concept guide.

[mariajgrimaldi]

@sarina: I'll be following your suggestions from openedx/openedx-events#406 here as well! Thank you :)

[sarina]

Looks good!

[sarina]

Suggested change

	#. The next function :math:`f_0` receives the potentially modified arguments and applies further operations, returning another modified set of arguments. This process continues through the list of functions.
	#. The next function (if there are more than one) :math:`f_1` receives the potentially modified arguments and applies further operations, returning another modified set of arguments. This process continues through the list of functions.

I think this is what you mean?

[sarina]

Suggested change

	#. Each subsequent function :math:`f_{i+1}` receives the output from the previous function and returns its modified output until all functions have been executed.
	#. Each subsequent function :math:`f_{n+1}` receives the output from the previous function and returns its modified output until all functions have been executed.

[sarina]

Suggested change

	#. The filter's tooling retrieves the configuration from ``OPEN_EDX_FILTERS_CONFIG``, which defines a list of N functions :math:`f_0, f_1, \ldots, f_{n-1}` that will be executed.
	#. The filter's tooling retrieves the configuration from ``OPEN_EDX_FILTERS_CONFIG``, which defines a list of N functions :math:`f_0, f_1, \ldots, f_{n}` that will be executed.

I think I might just use n because n-1 I would assume there's a final n step

[sarina]

Suggested change

Developers can implement functions in an `Open edX Django plugin`_, configure them for a particular filter in the ``OPEN_EDX_FILTERS_CONFIG`` setting, modifying the application flow when a the filter in question is invoked by the process in execution. These functions can the application's behavior by altering data, adding new data, or stopping execution by raising exceptions. For example, a filter can stop a student's enrollment if certain conditions, such as business rules, are not met.

Developers can implement functions in an `Open edX Django plugin`_, configure them for a particular filter in the ``OPEN_EDX_FILTERS_CONFIG`` setting, and modify the application flow when a the filter in question is invoked by the process in execution. These functions can the application's behavior by altering data, adding new data, or stopping execution by raising exceptions. For example, a filter can stop a student's enrollment if certain conditions, such as business rules, are not met.