feat: [FC-7879] implement get_user_dates() method to get all user dates for a course#326 by kyrylo-kh · Pull Request #346 · openedx/edx-when

kyrylo-kh · 2026-02-09T13:00:05Z

NOTE: Depends on #343

Description

This PR adds a new API function get_user_dates(course_id, user_id) to return a comprehensive map of dates for a given course and user.

Functionality

Returns a dictionary where keys are (block_key, field) tuples and values are datetime objects.
Prioritizes user-specific overrides (UserDate) over default content dates (ContentDate with DatePolicy).
Supports optional filtering by:
- block_types (e.g., sequential, vertical)
- block_keys (UsageKey or string list)
- date_types (due, start, etc.)

Features

Handles missing schedules and skips invalid or inactive dates gracefully.
Fully supports both string and object inputs for course and block keys.
Optimized with prefetching to minimize query overhead.

Testing

Extensive test suite verifies:

Correct merging of user and default dates
All filtering options
Multiple overrides with the latest one selected
Handling of edge cases like empty datasets or missing metadata

openedx-webhooks · 2026-02-09T13:00:10Z

Thanks for the pull request, @kyrylo-kh!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/openedx-unmaintained.

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.

Details

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:

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.

e0d · 2026-02-24T16:37:35Z

+            dates[key] = content_date.user_overrides[0].actual_date
+        else:
+            try:
+                dates[key] = content_date.policy.actual_date()


I notice that this call is without arguments, compared to this:

edx-when/edx_when/api.py

Line 251 in ab2ee71

dates[key] = cdate.policy.actual_date(schedule, end_datetime, cutoff_datetime)

Has this been tested with self-paced courses?

Currently get_user_dates only resolves absolute policy dates here. Relative dates are skipped (MissingScheduleError is caught). So self-paced (relative) policy dates aren’t returned by this API

What does this mean from a user perspective? Are we not providing user dates at all for self-paced courses or is the expectation that the caller make a different call for that information?

The bug was that get_user_dates was calling actual_date() with no arguments. Since relative dates need a schedule to compute (they're stored as offsets like "due in 14 days"), the call always raised MissingScheduleError and was silently skipped. So for self-paced enrolled users, only absolute dates and user overrides were returned - relative due dates were completely absent.

e0d · 2026-02-24T16:50:04Z

    return schedules


+def get_user_dates(course_id, user_id, block_types=None, block_keys=None, date_types=None):


I'm trying to grok how this function and [get_dates_for_course()](https://github.com/openedx/edx-when/blob/ab2ee71af64ee6ef720083586eb26e1f58a748d9/edx_when/api.py#L163) relate. Given that there is some repeated code, is there a cleaner refactoring that's possible?

get_user_dates is a narrow, filterable API for one user. get_dates_for_cours is the full path with caching, subsection filtering, and relative dates. The shared part is that loop that turns content dates into policy dates and applies user overrides. A cleaner approach would be to extract that into a small helper and have both call it (and pass schedule/end/cutoff from the helper so self-paced works in both). Would you like to have such helper function in this PR?

I think that makes sense.

…ourse

edschema · 2026-06-01T16:38:26Z

+    end_datetime, cutoff_datetime = _get_end_dates_from_content_dates(content_dates)
+    dates = _resolve_policy_dates(content_dates, schedule, end_datetime, cutoff_datetime)
+
+    for content_date in content_dates:


Suggestion: Guard against no schedule/ MissingScheduleError as in _resolve_policy_dates above

Added 5285469

edschema · 2026-06-01T16:39:02Z

+
+    for content_date in content_dates:
+        if content_date.user_overrides:
+            dates[(content_date.location, content_date.field)] = content_date.user_overrides[0].actual_date


Question: Is there a guard against shifting the date past a course end date?

No guard, by design - matches canonical get_dates_for_course, which applies overrides via bare userdate.actual_date without end-date capping. Only policy relative dates get capped. Overrides = explicit instructor extensions, allowed past course end

farhaanbukhsh

@kyrylo-kh thank you for the work here, I have added some more comments please have a look.

farhaanbukhsh · 2026-06-16T10:48:20Z

+    course_key = _ensure_key(CourseKey, course_key)
+    for assignment in assignments:
+        if assignment.date is not None:
+            set_date_for_block(course_key, assignment.block_key, 'due', assignment.date)


This should be an atomic operation because if on of the the operation raises errors, others will still go on. What do you think?

It seems to be handled in the follow-up PR already - https://github.com/openedx/edx-when/pull/347/changes#diff-c3d98af45b99fefbf88d009b7b89c13a1fdea947cb57f3523c1af0c5fa8c4899R595.

Maybe in this case, this method can be completely removed from the current PR @kyrylo-kh?

farhaanbukhsh · 2026-06-16T10:56:51Z

+    """
+    course_id = _ensure_key(CourseKey, course_id)
+
+    content_dates_query = models.ContentDate.objects.filter(


What about when edx_when.api._are_relative_dates_enabled is true/false, are we expected to return relative deadlines? I was looking into (relative_dates tests)[https://github.com/openedx/edx-when/blob/master/tests/test_api.py#L363], probably we should add this function there as well?

farhaanbukhsh · 2026-06-16T11:32:51Z

+    )
+
+    schedule = get_schedule_for_user(user_id, course_id)
+    end_datetime, cutoff_datetime = _get_end_dates_from_content_dates(content_dates)


Depending on the above answer if I have relative date enable this function can have undesirable behaviour, I have two scenarios in mind.

When a relative due date would fall after the course end date, the API should cap
it at the course end date. But this function wouldn't do that instead will return the relative due date.

For self-paced courses, if the learner started too late, due dates should become
unavailable (None) based on the course cutoff logic.

I have tried some tests

def test_due_filter_still_applies_course_end_cap(self): due_block = make_block_id(self.course_key) end_block = make_block_id(self.course_key, block_type='course') end_date = datetime(2023, 1, 5) models.ContentDate.objects.create( course_id=self.course_key, location=due_block, field='due', active=True, policy=models.DatePolicy.objects.create(rel_date=timedelta(days=10)), block_type='sequential' ) models.ContentDate.objects.create( course_id=self.course_key, location=end_block, field='end', active=True, policy=models.DatePolicy.objects.create(abs_date=end_date), block_type='course' ) self._make_enrollment_with_schedule(start_date=datetime(2023, 1, 1), created=datetime(2023, 1, 1)) result = api.get_user_dates(self.course_key, self.user.id, date_types=['due']) assert result == {(due_block, 'due'): end_date} def test_due_filter_still_applies_course_cutoff(self): due_block = make_block_id(self.course_key) end_block = make_block_id(self.course_key, block_type='course') end_date = datetime(2023, 1, 20) models.ContentDate.objects.create( course_id=self.course_key, location=due_block, field='due', active=True, policy=models.DatePolicy.objects.create(rel_date=timedelta(days=10)), block_type='sequential' ) models.ContentDate.objects.create( course_id=self.course_key, location=end_block, field='end', active=True, policy=models.DatePolicy.objects.create(abs_date=end_date), block_type='course' ) self._make_enrollment_with_schedule(start_date=datetime(2023, 1, 1), created=datetime(2023, 1, 15)) result = api.get_user_dates(self.course_key, self.user.id, date_types=['due'])

This is a nice catch. Except relative dates case, _get_end_dates_from_content_dates is returning not expected result in case any of the filters are passed, as this method require a course block to correctly calculate end date.
Probably it's necessary to get end date and due directly from DB via ContentDate and then calculate cutoff.

yup that makes more sense

GlugovGrGlib

This looks good, but the current issue around usage of the relative dates feature flag and _get_end_dates_from_content_dates worth addressing before the merge.

GlugovGrGlib · 2026-06-16T22:10:38Z

    return end_datetime, cutoff_datetime


+def _resolve_policy_dates(content_dates, schedule=None, end_datetime=None, cutoff_datetime=None):


Based on the previous discussion I suggest reusing this helper function inside def get_dates_for_course (lines 270 - 278) as well.
This requires building a policies map inside a helper, and also pass course_id as an additional parameter to normalize cdate using cdate.location.map_into_course(course_id) as in get_dates_for_course case, but makes more sense in keeping it as a helper method.

Also in case this is done, please update a docstring to describe arguments and new return value.

GlugovGrGlib · 2026-06-16T22:47:20Z

+    )
+
+    schedule = get_schedule_for_user(user_id, course_id)
+    end_datetime, cutoff_datetime = _get_end_dates_from_content_dates(content_dates)


This is a nice catch. Except relative dates case, _get_end_dates_from_content_dates is returning not expected result in case any of the filters are passed, as this method require a course block to correctly calculate end date.
Probably it's necessary to get end date and due directly from DB via ContentDate and then calculate cutoff.

GlugovGrGlib · 2026-06-17T09:08:44Z

+    course_key = _ensure_key(CourseKey, course_key)
+    for assignment in assignments:
+        if assignment.date is not None:
+            set_date_for_block(course_key, assignment.block_key, 'due', assignment.date)


It seems to be handled in the follow-up PR already - https://github.com/openedx/edx-when/pull/347/changes#diff-c3d98af45b99fefbf88d009b7b89c13a1fdea947cb57f3523c1af0c5fa8c4899R595.

Maybe in this case, this method can be completely removed from the current PR @kyrylo-kh?

GlugovGrGlib · 2026-06-17T09:16:12Z

+    return dates
+
+
+def get_existing_due_locations(course_key):


I suggest improving the function naming, as the current one is a little confusing.
get_locations_with_due_dates or get_blocks_with_due_dates might suit better

…ate-resolution

kyrylo-kh · 2026-07-05T21:15:47Z

Thanks for your review, @GlugovGrGlib @farhaanbukhsh
Please, take a look at changes 5bb4dae

farhaanbukhsh · 2026-07-19T13:05:31Z

@kyrylo-kh can you please fix the CI

openedx-webhooks added the open-source-contribution PR author is not from Axim or 2U label Feb 9, 2026

openedx-webhooks added this to Contributions Feb 9, 2026

github-project-automation Bot moved this to Needs Triage in Contributions Feb 9, 2026

kyrylo-kh requested a review from e0d February 9, 2026 18:23

mphilbrick211 moved this from Needs Triage to Waiting on Author in Contributions Feb 9, 2026

mphilbrick211 added the FC Relates to an Axim Funded Contribution project label Feb 9, 2026

e0d reviewed Feb 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread edx_when/tests/test_api.py Outdated

e0d reviewed Feb 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

e0d requested changes Feb 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

mphilbrick211 moved this from Waiting on Author to In Eng Review in Contributions Feb 25, 2026

feat: implement get_user_dates() method to get all user dates for a c…

08ca4c1

…ourse

kyrylo-kh force-pushed the rg/axm-dates-implement-service-layer-for-date-resolution branch from dbb6a9c to 08ca4c1 Compare March 9, 2026 22:00

refactor: move tests into another folder, add overrides check in tests

4a63da5

kyrylo-kh force-pushed the rg/axm-dates-implement-service-layer-for-date-resolution branch from b4852bb to 4a63da5 Compare March 12, 2026 00:09

kyrylo-kh force-pushed the rg/axm-dates-implement-service-layer-for-date-resolution branch 3 times, most recently from 7750058 to ab07abb Compare March 23, 2026 21:57

kyrylo-kh mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2026

feat: [AXM-2307] add management command to backfill ContentDate model… openedx/openedx-platform#37989

Open

kyrylo-kh force-pushed the rg/axm-dates-implement-service-layer-for-date-resolution branch from ab07abb to 6fbc0cd Compare March 25, 2026 21:31

refactor: implement _resolve_policy_dates function

b86734d

kyrylo-kh force-pushed the rg/axm-dates-implement-service-layer-for-date-resolution branch from 6fbc0cd to b86734d Compare March 25, 2026 21:50

edschema reviewed Jun 1, 2026

View reviewed changes

feat: add guard for MissingScheduleError

5285469

farhaanbukhsh assigned edschema Jun 5, 2026

farhaanbukhsh self-requested a review June 9, 2026 09:27

farhaanbukhsh suggested changes Jun 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

GlugovGrGlib suggested changes Jun 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

GlugovGrGlib mentioned this pull request Jun 17, 2026

feat: [FC-7879] add signal handler to save assignment dates to Conten… #347

Open

itsjeyd added the waiting on author PR author needs to resolve review requests, answer questions, fix tests, etc. label Jun 25, 2026

kyrylo-kh added 2 commits July 6, 2026 00:12

fix: [AXM-2268] address review on get_user_dates service layer

5bb4dae

Merge branch 'master' into rg/axm-dates-implement-service-layer-for-d…

8d5414d

…ate-resolution

		return schedules


		def get_user_dates(course_id, user_id, block_types=None, block_keys=None, date_types=None):

		return end_datetime, cutoff_datetime


		def _resolve_policy_dates(content_dates, schedule=None, end_datetime=None, cutoff_datetime=None):

Uh oh!

Conversation

kyrylo-kh commented Feb 9, 2026

Description

Functionality

Features

Testing

Uh oh!

openedx-webhooks commented Feb 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

farhaanbukhsh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GlugovGrGlib Jun 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GlugovGrGlib left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GlugovGrGlib Jun 16, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kyrylo-kh commented Jul 5, 2026

Uh oh!

farhaanbukhsh commented Jul 19, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

GlugovGrGlib Jun 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading

GlugovGrGlib Jun 16, 2026 •

edited

Loading