feat: removing get_storage_class from COURSE_IMPORT_STORAGE

[dwong2708]

Description

Fixes: #36738

The file cms/djangoapps/contentstore/storage.py was updated to use storages, as get_storage_class will be removed in Django 5.1.

These changes include:

• Ensuring the updated code is compatible with both Django 4.2 and Django 5 or above
• Adding test cases to verify the compatibility mentioned above
• Considering future compatibility with the STORAGES settings

Testing instructions

Run pytest -s cms/djangoapps/contentstore/tests/test_import.py

Functionality verified locally

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @dwong2708!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/wg-maintenance-edx-platform.

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.

[wgu-taylor-payne]

Since we introduce the same storage.py module here and in #36761 and since the other changes mirror each other, my recommendation is to pull these additions into #36761 (your dwong/updgrade-django-5-get-storages branch), and have that PR close both #36736 and #36738.

[dwong2708]

Since we introduce the same storage.py module here and in #36761 and since the other changes mirror each other, my recommendation is to pull these additions into #36761 (your dwong/updgrade-django-5-get-storages branch), and have that PR close both #36736 and #36738.

Thanks, Taylor. This time, I’d prefer to keep this PR separate. Although the cases are very similar, this one follows a different workflow. I’ll follow up with the storage.py module to ensure it contains the same code for both PRs. What do you think?

[wgu-taylor-payne]

Good question. I'm a little unsure of the best strategy, but the current strategy of introducing the same module in two distinct branches seems suboptimal to me. There are other approaches we might consider, but seeing how similar these two PRs, makes me think an easy approach would be combining them into one PR.

Maybe @awais786 and/or @feanil could weigh in on how to best handle these two related PRs?

[dwong2708]

Good question. I'm a little unsure of the best strategy, but the current strategy of introducing the same module in two distinct branches seems suboptimal to me. There are other approaches we might consider, but seeing how similar these two PRs, makes me think an easy approach would be combining them into one PR.

Maybe @awais786 and/or @feanil could weigh in on how to best handle these two related PRs?

@wgu-taylor-payne I have an idea. What if we create another PR derived from this one (#36761)? In theory, we would already have storage.py updated for this PR.

[wgu-taylor-payne]

@dwong2708 That sounds good to me 👍 .

[awais786]

@dwong2708 You can merge one of the PRs first, and then rebase the other one on top of it.

[dwong2708]

This PR has a dependency: #36761

[feanil]

@dwong2708 can you rebase this when you have a sec, then I can merge it.

[dwong2708]

@dwong2708 can you rebase this when you have a sec, then I can merge it.

Done. Thanks @feanil

[edx-pipeline-bot]

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX staging environment in preparation for a release to production.

[edx-pipeline-bot]

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX production environment.

[edx-pipeline-bot]

2U Release Notice: This PR has been deployed to the edX production environment.