Thanks for the pull request, @OmarIthawi! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

Feel free to add as much of the following information to the ticket as you can:

• supporting documentation
• Open edX discussion forum threads
• timeline information ("this must be merged by XX date", and why that is)
• partner information ("this is a course on edx.org")
• any other information that can help Product understand the context for the PR

All technical communication about the code itself will be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

This is currently a draft pull request. When it is ready for our review and all tests are green, click "Ready for Review", or remove "WIP" from the title, as appropriate.

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (81442be) 87.87% compared to head (0bfb817) 87.87%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1186   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.87%   87.87%           
=======================================
  Files         263      263           
  Lines        4485     4485           
  Branches     1133     1133           
=======================================
  Hits         3941     3941           
  Misses        530      530           
  Partials       14       14           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Hey @OmarIthawi, it looks like this PR is part of FC-0012. It would probably make sense to update the title accordingly? 🙂

Thanks for your review @itsjeyd. I've seen you requesting this a couple of times already, so I'd like to know if this is a new requirements?

So far we've been adding the keyword FC-0012 and OEP-58 to the pull request description, so it's searcheable.

We use this GitHub pull request query so to find all related pull requests:

• All FC-0012/OEP-58 pull requests: https://github.com/pulls?q=OEP-58+FC-0012+is%3Aopen+is%3Apr

So I think it makes sense to keep the pull request title intact, but I'd like to hear from you as well.

@OmarIthawi Thanks for the quick reply! It definitely makes sense to mention these keywords in the PR description. I mainly suggested to add the FC-0012 identifier to the title because @sarina had mentioned it here. I don't know if it's a hard requirement, though 🙂

From the perspective of OSPR management (which @mphilbrick211 and I are responsible for), what I will say is that having FC identifiers in PR titles makes it a bit easier to distinguish them from "regular" contributions. And that is helpful because FC PRs sometimes have different reviewers than regular PRs, and Michelle and I need to take that into account when pinging people for engineering review.

Makes sense @itsjeyd. We'll add it for new PRs.

We've duplicated our work 😓, my bad for making a task for the learning app again for my colleague.

Closing in favor of #1198

@OmarIthawi Even though your pull request wasn’t merged, please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.