feat: add opt-in course-authoring filtering to authorization endpoints

[mariajgrimaldi]

Description

This PR adds a public Open edX Filter hook for scope-bearing authorization operations, together with an optional course-authoring pipeline. When that pipeline is configured, stale Casbin assignments cannot approve or modify a course scope whose authz.enable_course_authoring flag resolves to off. Without the pipeline configuration, the affected endpoints keep their existing behavior. The filter contract and the reason for keeping course-authoring policy outside the shared views are documented in ADR 0017.

The implementation has three parts:

1. AuthorizationDataRequested provides a domain-neutral filter for authorization data that carries a scope. PermissionValidationMeView and the PUT and DELETE operations in RoleUserAPIView run their data through this filter.
2. CourseAuthoringVisibilityFilter implements the optional course-authoring rule. It resolves concrete course, organization-glob, and platform-glob scopes against the effective flag state. Library scopes remain available, and staff and superusers bypass this check.
3. The REST API views and tests are split by ownership. Admin console endpoints live under admin_console, the flag-state endpoint lives under course_authoring, and shared authorization endpoints remain in v1/views.py. The existing URLs do not change.

For POST /validate/me/, a hidden course scope remains in the response with allowed: false. For role assignment and removal, the pipeline rejects hidden scopes before calling the write API and reports scope_not_available through the endpoint's existing 207 Multi-Status response. A multi-scope PUT can still complete operations for visible scopes while reporting the rejected ones. These cases are covered by the REST API tests and pipeline tests.

Configuration

The course-authoring behavior is disabled unless the deployment registers the pipeline:

OPEN_EDX_FILTERS_CONFIG = {
    "org.openedx.authz.authorization_data.requested.v1": {
        "pipeline": [
            "openedx_authz.rest_api.v1.course_authoring.pipeline.CourseAuthoringVisibilityFilter",
        ],
        "fail_silently": False,
    },
}

How to test

To test the behavior in local environment, register the pipeline above. Since the UI is designed to avoid the use of write requests when the flag is off, make the following requests as a regular user who has a Casbin assignment for a course whose course-authoring flag is off:

• Send the course scope to POST /api/authz/v1/validate/me/. The result for that scope should contain allowed: false. A library scope in the same request should keep its Casbin result.
• Try to add or remove a role through /api/authz/v1/roles/users/. The response should be 207 Multi-Status, with no completed operation for the hidden course and a scope_not_available error for each rejected user.
• Repeat as staff or a superuser. The flag should not block the validation or write operation.

Here's a postman collection for you to use to test this:

endpoints-flag-aware.postman_collection.json

Merge checklist:

• Version bumped
• Changelog record added
• Documentation updated (not only docstrings)
• Fixup commits are squashed away
• Unit tests added/updated
• Manual testing instructions provided
• Noted concerns, dependencies, migration issues, deadlines, or tickets

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @mariajgrimaldi!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-openedx-authz.

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:

• 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.

[mariajgrimaldi]

This PR was meant to partially solve #340 & #341 by supporting the proposal made here openedx/frontend-app-admin-console#176 (comment) for the Verawood release - returning False for scopes based on the waffle flag state. But the approach still needs to address other dimensions, such as the performance and correctness of the entire framework, especially since these issues are release blockers and the modified endpoints are critical to the system's functionality. Internally, we discussed the best solution moving forward, given that we shouldn't introduce big changes that put the framework's correctness at risk, and went ahead with #358 and supporting filtering via the admin-console MFE. This will definitely introduce complexity to the MFE logic, which will be addressed in the next release cycle.