feat: renamed DeprecatedRestApiClient from EdxRestApiClient

[Yagnesh1998]

Description:

As Per this DEPR: openedx/public-engineering#218

This ticket is to clean-up some remaining usages, and ultimately to remove the deprecated EdxRestApiClient so the code no longer lives in the platform.

Move EdxRestApiClient into a location near where it is used in edx-platform and rename it to DeprecatedRestApiClient

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @Yagnesh1998! 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.

[dianakhuang]

I think we should pull out this value from the edx-rest-api-client library and make it a constant here, since we don't want this value to change as the library changes, since the deprecated client won't be updated as the library changes.

[dianakhuang]

This looks reasonable to me. I'm going to merge it for now, but I will also make a revert PR just in case it needs to get backed out.

[dianakhuang]

Actually, I'm going to get ask the purchase squad to review, just in case they have other concerns.

[robrap]

@dianakhuang: We also would need to add slumber to edx-platform, since it was removed in the other PR.

@dianakhuang @Yagnesh1998: Does it make sense to skip this PR, and simply replace this usage of the old client? Either way, I think that should be the next step to actually close out the DEPR. @Yagnesh1998: you could research how all the other uses of the old client were replaced in past PRs.

• UPDATE: See feat: renamed DeprecatedRestApiClient from EdxRestApiClient #33603 (comment)

[robrap]

@Yagnesh1998: We should add slumber explicitly to base.in in this PR, because it will no longer come in as part of the client. After doing so, I think you can run make compile-requirements (rather than make upgrade) to fix the comments for the requirements.

Also, I discussed with @dianakhuang, and we will move ahead with this PR. I didn't realize that there was a bug found the last time this was attempted. I detailed that separately in openedx/public-engineering#189 (comment).

[Yagnesh1998]

@robrap Sure. Thanks for the update.

[robrap]

@Yagnesh1998: Do you plan to add slumber as requested in this comment? #33603 (comment). Note that there is also a github action that we can run (if you can't) to update dependencies once you add slumber to base.in.

[dianakhuang]

@robrap I've been working with @Yagnesh1998 on this, and we've been trying to get slumber into kernel.in. We ran into issues getting make upgrade running, so thanks for the reminder of the GitHub action that we can use instead.

[robrap]

@robrap I've been working with @Yagnesh1998 on this, and we've been trying to get slumber into kernel.in. We ran into issues getting make upgrade running, so thanks for the reminder of the GitHub action that we can use instead.

I forgot about kernel.in. Sounds great. I'd just get that change in on this branch and work from there.

[dianakhuang]

Could you also add a comment about the fact that this dependency is unsupported and used by the DeprecatedRestApiClient?

[robrap]

@Yagnesh1998 @dianakhuang: I'm not clear if the github action can be used against the personal fork? See https://discuss.openedx.org/t/new-tools-for-managing-python-dependencies-in-edx-platform/11263. If not, you could run make upgrade-package package=slumber in the devstack lms shell, which can be started with make lms-shell.

[dianakhuang]

@robrap I made a separate branch, ran the action on it, and then merged it: #33916

[robrap]

@robrap I made a separate branch, ran the action on it, and then merged it: #33916

Does that mean this should be closed?

[dianakhuang]

We merged #33916 instead

[openedx-webhooks]

@Yagnesh1998 Even though your pull request wasn’t merged, please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.

[Yagnesh1998]

@robrap Yes that makes sense