Show draft tokens in Studio by AlexVelezLl · Pull Request #5729 · learningequality/studio

AlexVelezLl · 2026-03-02T21:39:51Z

Summary

Shows draft tokens in ChannelEdit view.
Hide draft publish option from publishSidePanel if the user doesn't have the test_dev_feature feature flag enabled.

Draft tokens in ChannelEdit:

Grabacion.de.pantalla.2026-03-02.a.la.s.4.35.06.p.m.mov

Side panel for users without test_def_feature enabled:

References

Reviewer guidance

Closes #5461.
Closes #5629.

rtibblesbot

Solid implementation of draft token display and feature-flag gating of the draft publish option.

CI passing. Screenshots provided and look reasonable.

suggestion: Emit during <script setup> in PreviewDraftChannelModal may not close the modal reliably (see inline)
suggestion: "Get draft token" menu item and details panel draft token row are not gated by the test_dev_feature feature flag (see inline)
suggestion: No backend tests for the new get_draft_token() model method or the draft_token annotation
nitpick: Label inconsistency between modal and details panel (see inline)
praise: Good defensive handling — clearing draft_token on live publish, null-safe get_draft_token(), and logging when the modal opens without a token

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Reviewed the pull request diff checking for:

Correctness: bugs, edge cases, undocumented behavior, resource leaks, hardcoded values
Design: unnecessary complexity, naming, readability, comment accuracy, redundant state
Architecture: duplicated concerns, minimal interfaces, composition over inheritance
Testing: behavior-based assertions, mocks only at hard boundaries, accurate coverage
Completeness: missing dependencies, unupdated usages, i18n, accessibility, security
Principles: DRY (same reason to change), SRP, Rule of Three (no premature abstraction)
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria
For UI changes: inspected screenshots for layout, visual completeness, and consistency

rtibblesbot · 2026-03-02T21:43:36Z

...curation/contentcuration/frontend/channelEdit/components/modals/PreviewDraftChannelModal.vue

+      'Attempted to open PreviewDraftChannelModal without a draft token. Closing modal.',
+      { channelId: props.channel.id },
+    );
+    handleDismiss();


suggestion: Calling emit('close') during <script setup> execution (i.e., before the component is mounted) may not work reliably — the parent's @close handler might not be wired up yet at this point in the lifecycle. The parent already guards with v-if="showPreviewDraftModal && currentChannel" and the menu item checks currentChannel.draft_token, so this path is unlikely to be hit. But if you want a reliable fallback, consider moving this check to onMounted() or using a watchEffect instead.

Hmm, it makes sense. This is the second time I've heard about this. I think it broadly makes sense, yes.

rtibblesbot · 2026-03-02T21:43:36Z

contentcuration/contentcuration/frontend/channelEdit/views/TreeView/TreeViewBase.vue

              </VListTile>
            </template>
+            <VListTile
+              v-if="currentChannel && currentChannel.draft_token"


suggestion: This menu item is only gated by currentChannel.draft_token being truthy, not by the test_dev_feature feature flag. If user A (with the flag) publishes a draft, and user B (without the flag) opens the same channel, user B would see this menu item and the draft token. Is this intentional? If draft tokens should only be visible to users with the feature flag, this should also check hasFeatureEnabled(FeatureFlagKeys.test_dev_feature). The same applies to the draft token row in StudioDetailsPanel.vue (line 51).

This is okay, yes. We will only hide the draft option radio button for users who do not have the test_dev_feature feature flag.

rtibblesbot · 2026-03-02T21:43:36Z

...curation/contentcuration/frontend/channelEdit/components/modals/PreviewDraftChannelModal.vue

+  <KModal :title="previewYourDraftTitle$()">
+    <template #default>
+      <div>
+        <strong>{{ channelTokenLabel$() }}</strong>


nitpick: This uses channelTokenLabel$() which renders as "Channel token", but StudioDetailsPanel.vue uses draftTokenLabel$() which renders as "Draft token" for the same concept. Since this modal is specifically about a draft channel token, consider using draftTokenLabel$() here for consistency — or vice versa, pick one label for both contexts.

Didn't question this because this is how it is on the specs, but it really makes a lot of sense, and will save us 1 string from translation.

rtibblesbot · 2026-03-02T21:43:36Z

contentcuration/contentcuration/viewsets/channel.py

                                "publishing": False,
                                "version": channel.version,
                                "primary_token": channel.get_human_token().token,
+                                "draft_token": None,


praise: Good call clearing draft_token to None on live publish — this ensures stale draft tokens don't linger in the frontend after a full publish.

rtibblesbot · 2026-03-02T21:43:36Z

contentcuration/contentcuration/frontend/channelEdit/components/sidePanels/PublishSidePanel.vue

      });

+      const showDraftMode = computed(() =>
+        hasFeatureEnabled.value(FeatureFlagKeys.test_dev_feature),


praise: Clean feature-flag gating of the draft publish mode. The dynamic component :is pattern to switch between KRadioButtonGroup and div is a nice way to preserve the live-publish UI for non-flagged users.

rtibblesbot

Clean implementation of draft token display and feature-flag gating.

CI passing. Screenshots and video verify the full flow: draft publish with snackbar feedback, "Draft published successfully" with Preview action, draft token modal, draft token in details panel, overflow menu item, and correct cleanup on live publish.

1 prior finding resolved. (defensive onMounted handling)

Prior — UNADDRESSED:

suggestion: No backend tests for get_draft_token() or the draft_token annotation (see inline)

No new issues found.

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

rtibblesbot · 2026-03-02T22:06:24Z

contentcuration/contentcuration/models.py

+        draft_version = self.channel_versions.filter(version=None).first()
+        if not draft_version:
+            return None
+        return draft_version.secret_token


suggestion (UNADDRESSED from prior review): get_draft_token() and the _annotate_draft_token subquery in channel.py both rely on the version=None convention for identifying draft channel versions. A backend test covering this method (and the annotation returning the correct token) would guard against regressions if the ChannelVersion schema or draft lifecycle changes.

rtibblesbot

Clean implementation of draft token display and feature-flag gating.

CI passing. Screenshots and video provided in PR description.

3 prior finding(s) resolved. (backend tests added for get_draft_token() model method and draft_token API annotation)

No new issues found. The subquery annotation, null-safe token handling in publish_next, draft token clearing on live publish, and isDraftPublishing watcher logic all look correct.

@rtibblesbot's comments are generated by an LLM, and should be evaluated accordingly

How was this generated?

Compared the current PR state against findings from a prior review:

Retrieved prior bot reviews deterministically via the GitHub API
Classified each prior finding as RESOLVED, UNADDRESSED, ACKNOWLEDGED, or CONTESTED
Only raised NEW findings for newly introduced code
Reviewed the pull request diff checking for correctness, design, architecture, testing, completeness, and adherence to DRY/SRP principles
Checked CI status and linked issue acceptance criteria

rtibbles

No concerns from the code, manual testing of the flow checks out and accords with the screen recording.

AlexVelezLl requested a review from rtibblesbot March 2, 2026 21:39

rtibblesbot reviewed Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

AlexVelezLl force-pushed the draft-tokens branch 2 times, most recently from 53d5c8f to 617670e Compare March 2, 2026 21:51

AlexVelezLl requested review from rtibblesbot March 2, 2026 21:51

rtibblesbot reviewed Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

AlexVelezLl force-pushed the draft-tokens branch from 617670e to 3220dbf Compare March 2, 2026 22:24

rtibblesbot approved these changes Mar 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

AlexVelezLl requested a review from rtibbles March 2, 2026 22:31

AlexVelezLl force-pushed the draft-tokens branch from 3220dbf to 597fde6 Compare March 3, 2026 13:47

rtibbles self-assigned this Mar 5, 2026

Hide draft option from PublishSidePanel if user does not have enabled

b881d73

AlexVelezLl force-pushed the draft-tokens branch 2 times, most recently from a8b59d6 to fc05ef0 Compare March 10, 2026 10:47

Show draft token in channelEdit view

045277a

AlexVelezLl force-pushed the draft-tokens branch from fc05ef0 to 045277a Compare March 10, 2026 10:54

rtibbles approved these changes Mar 10, 2026

View reviewed changes

rtibbles merged commit 6f4929c into learningequality:unstable Mar 10, 2026
13 checks passed

AlexVelezLl deleted the draft-tokens branch March 10, 2026 21:45

Conversation

AlexVelezLl commented Mar 2, 2026

Summary

References

Reviewer guidance

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot 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!

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!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rtibblesbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rtibbles left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants