feat: migrate org scope access forward and rollback from/to authz policies

[mariajgrimaldi]

Description

Resolves: #222

This PR adds org-level support to the forward and rollback migration scripts.

Forward migration

The previous implementation filtered out course access roles with an empty course_id, which excluded org-level roles entirely. Changes:

• Removed that filter to include org-level roles.
• Scope external key is resolved per role in priority order:
  1. course_id if non-empty (course-level scope, most restrictive)
  2. org if non-empty (org-glob external key)
  3. Neither defined: instance-level role, not yet supported.

Rollback migration

The rollback got a bit more complex. The previous approach queried the Casbin table through scope model relationships, but org-level roles have no associated scope, so they'd be excluded.

I went a different route: fetch all valid role assignments (course or org level), filter by course_id or org_id, then recreate the corresponding course access roles. I found it easier to use API calls here rather than ORM queries, though the tradeoff is that filtering moves from the DB to runtime. Open to suggestions since it's the biggest refactor in the PR.

How to test

I put together some scripts to test this. Download them and follow the instructions in the README:

scripts-migrations-testing.zip

Merge checklist:
Check off if complete or not applicable:

• Version bumped
• Changelog record added
• Documentation updated (not only docstrings)
• Fixup commits are squashed away
• Unit tests added/updated
• Manual testing instructions provided
• Noted any: Concerns, dependencies, migration issues, deadlines, tickets

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @mariajgrimaldi!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-openedx-authz.

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.

[rodmgwgu]

Code is looking good, apart from the existing comments. Also I see that there is a coverage issue.

[dwong2708]

@mariajgrimaldi just a minor comment, could you add something like the following to the PR description?

Resolves: #222

This helps link the task to the PR.

[dwong2708]

LGTM! Just a non-blocking comment

[dwong2708]

nit: I think the tuple cast could be moved above the return to avoid casting on each iteration. Alternatively, this function could accept a tuple directly, and the caller would pass it as such.

[mariajgrimaldi]

Totally! Thanks

[mariajgrimaldi]

04f62e0

[MaferMazu]

@mariajgrimaldi, thanks for this PR.
Thanks for the helpers added in the api, and kudos for the script for testing, it makes it easy to try this out quickly. ✨

Migration and rollback results:
=== Summary ===
✅ PASS All checks passed.

And it looks good in the Casbin table and the course role access table.

A minor thing I found is in the migration messages: if the registry already exists, the message shows an error (the command didn't create it because it already exists). I'm not sure we should show an error when the registry is there.

Examples:

Here I was playing, and I got the error because a rollback entry already exists.

Here, I ran the migration script with the delete flag, immediately after running it without it.

... I don't think it is a blocker, but it is something I found.

[mariajgrimaldi]

@MaferMazu: thanks for the review!

A minor thing I found is in the migration messages: if the registry already exists, the message shows an error (the command didn't create it because it already exists). I'm not sure we should show an error when the registry is there.

This design was already in place in the original PR introducing this feature, so the decision not to delete existing records was made there and might be out of scope for this PR. However, it's worth considering as an improvement for better debugging. Maybe we could split into success, errors, and warnings, but deletion would still happen only for the success list, since those were the records migrated. This way, the system state stays the same before and after the migration.

[BryanttV]

LGTM!

[rodmgwgu]

Looks good, thanks!