SE-1069 Module Engagement: handle case when no elasticsearch host is configured

[samuelallan72]

Runs just ModuleEngagementRosterPartitionTask instead of the full ModuleEngagementRosterIndexTask if no elasticsearch host is configured.

JIRA tickets: OSPR-3784

Discussions: open-craft#10

Dependencies: None

Merge deadline: None

Testing instructions:

1. don't configure an elasticsearch host (TODO: full instructions)
2. verify that ModuleEngagementRosterPartitionTask shows in the ModuleEngagementWorkflowTask task logs, instead of ModuleEngagementRosterIndexTask

Author notes and concerns:

Reviewers

• @pomegranited
• edX reviewer[s] TBD

Settings

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @swalladge! I've created OSPR-3784 to keep track of it in JIRA. JIRA is a place for product owners to prioritize feature reviews by the engineering development teams.

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

• supporting documentation
• edx-code email 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 still be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #751 into master will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 20%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #751      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   74.57%   74.56%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         207      207              
  Lines       23404    23413       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits        17453    17457       +4     
- Misses       5951     5956       +5

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...s/tasks/tests/acceptance/test_module_engagement.py	36.95% <18.75%> (+1.95%)	⬆️
edx/analytics/tasks/insights/module_engagement.py	79.13% <25%> (-0.28%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update c28f775...2dbcd65. Read the comment docs.

[natabene]

@swalladge Thank you for your contribution. Please let me know once it is ready for our review.

[pomegranited]

@swalladge 👍

In the process of getting the acceptance tests working, I discovered a bug in original commit from the client's branch, so we'll need to make sure this fix makes it there too.

• I tested this by verifying that this code runs as expected on our client's instance, which does not have [elasticsearch] host configured.
  Also ran the updated acceptance tests from this branch:
  1. Set up the Analytics Pipeline docker devstack
  2. Check out this branch and install it:

     make analytics-pipeline-shell
     # From devstack/Makefile#L300
     sudo chown -R hadoop:hadoop /edx/app/analytics_pipeline
     source /edx/app/hadoop/.bashrc
     make install
     

  3. From the analytics-pipeline-shell, ran:

     make develop-local
     make docker-test-acceptance-local ONLY_TESTS=edx.analytics.tasks.tests.acceptance.test_module_engagement
     

• I checked the code against the client's branch ff19850
• I checked for accessibility issues N/A
• Includes documentation: ModuleEngagementWorkflowTask.host field description provided, tasks are automatically documented from parameters.

[pomegranited]

This is ready for edX review, @natabene

Uncertain what to do about the unit test coverage drop -- the only way I can think to unit test this basically mimics the code change itself. But we've added an acceptance test which verifies the config change is ok, so hopefully that is enough?

[natabene]

@edx/analytics Please review this when you have a chance.

[openedx-webhooks]

@swalladge 🎉 Your pull request was merged!

Please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.

[brianhw]

I think the unit test coverage drop is small enough to not be worth worrying about.

[pomegranited]

Thank you @brianhw !