E0d/refactor 0002 inter app apis

[e0d]

This is PR refactors code in the lms/student Django app toward the standards agreed to:

• https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/blob/master/docs/decisions/0002-inter-app-apis.rst
• https://open-edx-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/architectural-decisions/oep-0049-django-app-patterns.html

In short the functions in models_api.py have been migrated to api.py and references haven been updated to use api.py.

[kdmccormick]

Nice, I'll take a look soon.

[kdmccormick]

Sorry, Ed. Busy on-call week. This is still on my radar.

[kdmccormick]

Looks good, just one formatting request. Out out of curiosity, do you have a sense why @tuchfarber originally split it into api.py and models_api.py? Seems as if he was following the same ADR that you were.

[kdmccormick]

The prevailing style in edx-platform is to have one import .... as .... per line, preferring parentheses to backslashes. The from common.djangoapps.student.models import (... on the next line is a good example.

[kdmccormick]

Looks like we have docs on this, albeit old ones: https://edx.readthedocs.io/projects/edx-developer-guide/en/latest/style_guides/python-guidelines.html#breaking-long-lines

[tuchfarber]

Looks good, just one formatting request. Out out of curiosity, do you have a sense why @tuchfarber originally split it into api.py and models_api.py? Seems as if he was following the same ADR that you were.

I borrowed that pattern from #20354 at the time. Though I can say I didn't super understand the benefit of it. It felt superfluous which is why I didn't add it to the OEP https://open-edx-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/architectural-decisions/oep-0049-django-app-patterns.html

[kdmccormick]

Oh hi @tuchfarber ! Hope you're doing well. Thanks for the background.

@e0d Besides my import style nit above, I think your refactor looks good. I would use a refactor: commit rather than a chore: commit. Otherwise, 🚀

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @e0d! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

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

• supporting documentation
• Open edX discussion forum 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 be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @e0d! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

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

• supporting documentation
• Open edX discussion forum 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 be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green.

[e0d]

@feanil since you are leading the API work, is this worth merging?

[feanil]

Yes, I think this move towards our current standards id definitely worth landing.

[bradenmacdonald]

@e0d This seems like a nice PR and has two thumbs up - can we get it rebased and merged?

[itsjeyd]

Hey @e0d, is this PR still needed or should we close it?