716 archived field cc group models

[ufedaseyeuconsultant]

Description

Adds archived = models.BooleanField(default=False) to CompetencyCriteriaGroup and
CompetencyCriterion, in one migration, per ADR-0002
Decision 7's archive-only retirement rule (a group or criterion referenced by learner status is
retired by archiving, never hard-deleted). No archived_at companion field: django-simple-history
(ADR-0003) already tracks both models, covering the "when" without a separate timestamp.

This PR makes no behavior changes. Nothing here sets, reads, or filters on archived; that's
downstream tickets' scope (#674, #675, #681). Both models' existing .. no_pii: class-level
docstring annotation already covers the new field, matching CompetencyRuleProfile.archived's
existing non-PII precedent, so no separate PII registry change was needed.

Impacted roles: Developer only. This is a schema-only change with no reachable behavior yet;
no Course Author, Learner, or Operator-facing effect until a downstream ticket starts using the
field.

Supporting information

• Closes [BE] Add archived field to Competency Criteria & Group models #716
• Blocked by [BE] Implement CBE core data models (CompetencyTaxonomy, criteria, learner status) #613 (the CBE data model this PR adds a field to)
• Unblocks [BE] Delete Competency Criterion #674, [BE] Build endpoint for removing a Competency Criteria Group #675, and [BE] GET Competency Criteria & Groups #681, which were drafted assuming this field would exist ("whichever
  lands first adds it" language in their own tickets)
• This work was originally implemented inline as part of [BE] GET Competency Criteria & Groups #681's own branch, then split out into
  its own branch/PR so the model change lands and reviews independently of [BE] GET Competency Criteria & Groups #681's endpoint logic

Testing instructions

1. Apply the migration: python manage.py migrate openedx_learning
2. Confirm no missing migrations: python manage.py makemigrations --check --dry-run (should
   report nothing pending for openedx_learning)
3. Run the new/updated model tests:
   pytest tests/openedx_learning/applets/cbe/test_criteria_group.py tests/openedx_learning/applets/cbe/test_criterion.py --no-cov
   — includes test_group_archived_defaults_to_false and test_criterion_archived_defaults_to_false,
   pinning the same "defaults to False" contract CompetencyRuleProfile.archived already has a test
   for
4. Run the full CBE suite to confirm nothing else broke:
   pytest tests/openedx_learning/applets/cbe/ --no-cov
5. Run PII annotation coverage: tox -e pii_check (or directly:
   code_annotations django_find_annotations --config_file .pii_annotations.yml --report --coverage)
   and confirm CompetencyCriteriaGroup/CompetencyCriterion are not listed among uncovered models

Other information

• Migration rollback: trivially reversible (AddField on four tables — the two models plus their
  django-simple-history historical counterparts); no data migration involved.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @ufedaseyeuconsultant!

This repository is currently maintained by @axim-engineering.

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.

[ufedaseyeuconsultant]

@tbain Same as PR before
alezconsultant#5

[tbain]

One minor comment from me:

1. tests/openedx_learning/applets/cbe/test_criteria_group.py: 32 and tests/openedx_learning/applets/cbe/test_criterion.py:35 These docstrings are unnecessary, we can remove them to reduce the noise

Otherwise nothing from Codex

---

Details

## Verdict

No actionable bugs found in PR #857 against issue #716.

The PR correctly:

• Adds archived = BooleanField(default=False) to both models.
• Adds one migration covering live and historical tables.
• Omits archived_at.
• Preserves existing PII annotations and history tracking.
• Adds no runtime archive behavior, as required.

Verification:

• Targeted tests: 19 passed.
• Full CBE suite: 144 passed.
• Migration drift check: passed.
• git diff --check: passed.
• PII check is blocked by pre-existing repository-wide safelist/coverage issues unrelated to this PR.

One non-blocking question: the new help_text says the field hides rows from a criteria-tree read endpoint, although no such filtering exists yet. This appears intended as documentation for downstream work, but may be worth confirming.

[ufedaseyeuconsultant]

@tbain Done

[tbain]

Approved, thanks :)