Update script dsl to new format and make sure script dsl tests pass

[dmcavoy]

https://codedotorg.atlassian.net/browse/PLAT-223

Background

As part of updating the position values for lessons and script levels I realized that I would want to create a through relationship for scripts to know about lessons. In looking into that work I realized that the way add_script worked where script.lessons was getting setting was not going to work with that new set up. In order to move toward a set up that supports that through relationship I need to update add_script. In looking at where I wanted to end up with add_script I also realized that the format of the data coming in from script DSL could be a lot cleaner and clear.

Overview

This PR does the work to clean up the set up of the information coming from Script DSL into add_script in preparation for improvements to add_script. You can see the before and after below of some information. Some big things that changed are that lesson and lesson groups are no longer separate things being passed to add_script. In addition information has been moved to be with the correct object. For example we don't keep lesson name in the level anymore. Because of this change we no longer needed the raw_lessons parameter on add_script. So I removed that and updated a bunch of tests that call add_script to reflect that change.

Before:

        lessons: [
          {
            lesson: "Bob's stage",
            scriptlevels: [
              {lesson: "Bob's stage", levels: [{name: 'Level 1'}], properties: {progression: "Bob's progression"}},
              {lesson: "Bob's stage", levels: [{name: 'Level 2'}]},
            ]
          }
        ],
        lesson_groups: []

After

        lesson_groups: [
          key: "my_group",
          display_name: "Display Name",
          lessons: [
            {
              name: "Bob's stage",
              script_levels: [
                {levels: [{name: 'Level 1'}], properties: {progression: "Bob's progression"}},
                {levels: [{name: 'Level 2'}]},
              ]
            }
          ]
        ]

[davidsbailey]

Looks great, @dmcavoy ! From a reviewer standpoint I really appreciate that you made a stopping point here. I hope it wasn't too much extra work to make it happen, and hopefully it brings you some peace of mind knowing that you've got part of this passing tests and signed off as you proceed. apologies for the number of comments inline, code quality looks great and most comments are just on style.

[davidsbailey]

I'm excited to see that you went with this approach! I'm interested to hear at some point if it felt worth doing.

[uponthesun]

Are we recreating raw_lessons because that's what's needed for the current code to work, or because we want to keep that for the long term? I think both are fine but I'm trying to understand what our strategy will be.

(I know we want to move away from the current seeding process long long term, but my impression is we'll probably have something similar to the current state for the next 6-12 months. Is this accurate?)

[davidsbailey]

Per earlier discussion i had with Dani, this is only here to let the current code in add_script keep working, while changing the code the calls it, as a way to break up this task into smaller pieces.

Generally speaking, yes, the seed process will probably resemble it's current form for the next 6-12 months, except as changes to it are needed to unblock other work. We'll definitely want to tackle the seed problem head-on when we go to consolidate LB into prod.

[uponthesun]

I'd like to review as well, it shouldn't take too long, if that's ok.

[uponthesun]

I thought we already had logic for creating a default lesson group in add_script. Will it be duplicated now?

[dmcavoy]

This just makes sure we create a lesson group to hold the lessons in the DSL output if one is not specified by the curriculum writer.

[uponthesun]

Are we recreating raw_lessons because that's what's needed for the current code to work, or because we want to keep that for the long term? I think both are fine but I'm trying to understand what our strategy will be.

(I know we want to move away from the current seeding process long long term, but my impression is we'll probably have something similar to the current state for the next 6-12 months. Is this accurate?)

[uponthesun]

It seems like we might want to protect against getting into this state earlier, if we can, since the thing passed into add_script is now raw_lesson_groups, not lessons themselves. So it seems like at this point every lesson should already belong to a lesson group.

More generally I think it's a good goal to minimize the parts of the code that need to know or care about the "default lesson group" logic. I think it'd be reasonable to put that in the Script DSL side of things, since you could consider not specifying a lesson group to just be a shorthand for specifying an unnamed lesson group.

[dmcavoy]

I think some of the later work will hopefully address this concern but if it does not let me know.