feat: add new unit test to check if request data is formatted in updateCourseAdvancedSettings

[jignaciopm]

Description

This PR adds a unit test to check whether the request body of updateCourseAdvancedSettings is formatted in snake_case.

Supporting information

This PR is based on the suggestion in this comment

Testing instructions

N/A

Other information

N/A

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @jignaciopm!

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.

---

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

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.09%. Comparing base (920f4a5) to head (a4d76e2).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2193      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.09%   94.09%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1164     1164              
  Lines       24493    24493              
  Branches     5196     5195       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        23047    23046       -1     
- Misses       1378     1379       +1     
  Partials       68       68              

☔ 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.

[jignaciopm]

@bradenmacdonald @arbrandes What do you think? Does it make sense to you?

[bradenmacdonald]

I don't think this test is particularly realistic.

I was thinking something like this:

1. Create a mock based on the actual data from the API

{
    "display_name": {
        "value": "Test Course Name",
        "display_name": "Course Display Name",
        "help": "Enter the name of the course as it should appear in the course list.",
        "deprecated": false,
        "hide_on_enabled_publisher": false
    },
    "course_edit_method": {
        "value": "Studio",
        "display_name": "Course Editor",
        "help": "Enter the method by which this course is edited (\"XML\" or \"Studio\").",
        "deprecated": true,
        "hide_on_enabled_publisher": false
    },
    "showanswer": {
        "value": "after_all_attempts_or_correct",
        "display_name": "Show Answer",
        "help": "Specify when the Show Answer button appears for each problem. Valid values are \"always\", \"answered\", \"attempted\", \"closed\", \"finished\", \"past_due\", \"correct_or_past_due\", \"after_all_attempts\", \"after_all_attempts_or_correct\", \"attempted_no_past_due\", and \"never\".",
        "deprecated": false,
        "hide_on_enabled_publisher": false
    },
    "advanced_modules": {
        "value": ["poll", "lti_consumer", "survey", "google-document"],
        "display_name": "Advanced Module List",
        "help": "Enter the names of the advanced modules to use in your course.",
        "deprecated": false,
        "hide_on_enabled_publisher": false
    },
    "cert_html_view_overrides": {
        "value": {
            "accomplishment_banner_opening": "{fullname}, congrats on this certificate!",
            "camelCaseKey": "camel case keys should be preserved if used",
        },
        "display_name": "Certificate Web/HTML View Overrides",
        "help": "Enter course-specific overrides for the Web/HTML template parameters here (JSON format)",
        "deprecated": false,
        "hide_on_enabled_publisher": false
    }
}

2. Mock the HTTP endpoint for /api/contentstore/v0/advanced_settings/:course_id with that value
3. Call getCourseAdvancedSettings(), modify one or two values.
4. Call updateCourseAdvancedSettings() with the new values.
5. Assert that it calls the axios POST mock with the exact same data as in the mock (1) except for the changed values.

The mock includes: plain values, object values, deprecated value, and a JSON object value with both snake_case and camelCase so it should be a thorough test.

Then we can use the same mock to create an accurate test on the settings page itself: mock the endpoint, render the settings UI, make a couple changes, "click" on the Save button, and assert that the POST request to the server matches the original mock exactly except for the changes.

What do you think?

[bradenmacdonald]

Shouldn't we have a value with a nested option in snake_case ?