fix(signals): support Celery protocol v2 in create_user_task

[asajjad2]

What are the relevant tickets?

#232, #6807

Description (What does it do?)

This PR fixes a compatibility issue with the create_user_task signal handler when using Celery's task message protocol version 2, which has been the default for several years.

Currently, the signal handler fails with the following error:

TypeError: tuple indices must be integers or slices, not str

This occurs because the handler expects a protocol v1-style task body (a dictionary), while protocol v2 passes the body as a tuple. Although the exception is caught and logged internally by Celery, it might be preventing UserTaskStatus from being created reliably in affected cases.

Changes

The changes mainly follows the workaround suggested in the issue:

• Updated create_user_task to detect the task protocol version and normalize the body to the expected format.
• Added utility functions to convert protocol v2 bodies and headers into a protocol v1-compatible structure.
• Ensured backward compatibility with protocol v1.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @asajjad2!

This repository is currently maintained by @usamasadiq.

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.

[pdpinch]

asajjad2's work should be covered by the MIT entity agreement. I added him to the MIT Staff and GitHub Details google sheet back in February.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (179f02e) to head (9b0bf42).
⚠️ Report is 8 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master      #422   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           16        17    +1     
  Lines          435       460   +25     
  Branches        47        51    +4     
=========================================
+ Hits           435       460   +25     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ 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.

[e0d]

@asajjad2 Looks like there are some test and quality check failures. Can you have a look. The issue with your CLA should be fixed a little later today when the batch job runs.

[e0d]

@asajjad2
I've added you to the openedx-triage team as you are covered under an entity CLA. This will mean that tests will run automatically when you submit a pull request in the future. Please look for an invitation in your email and accept it.

[pdpinch]

@asajjad2 can you try re-running the tests on this PR?

[pdpinch]

@e0d the tests are failing with the error:

The job was not started because recent account payments have failed or your spending limit needs to be increased. Please check the 'Billing & plans' section in your settings

Is there an issue with openedx's Billing and Plans? Or is this on MIT?

[e0d]

@pdpinch I think this was an issue on our side caused by a mysterious .03 charge. I've re-run them. It does look like there's a commit lint issue.