feat!: remove Transifex calls for FC-0012

[OmarIthawi]

Breaking change!

This change breaks the Jenkins transifex integration which has been deprecated in favor of the new GitHub Transifex App integration as part of OEP-58.

Changes

• Removes all direct use of tx pull and tx push commands from the micro-frontend in favor
  of the atlas pull command.
• Remove source and language translations from the repositories, hence no .json files will be committed into the repos.
• src/i18n/index.js should export and empty array so the make pull_translations override it with the dynamic list of languages.
• Remove the experimental OPENEDX_ATLAS_PULL flag to make atlas pull the default.
• Remove all Transifex related Makefile targets and other files.

Merge timeline

This should only be merged after Translation Infrastructure update OEP-58 is fully implemented.

The timing announcement will be shared by @brian-smith-tcril on #translations-project-fc-0012 Open edX Slack channel.

Keep this pull request as a draft to prevent accidental merge.

Pre-merge checklist

• Deprecate pre-OEP-58 Transifex scripts from all repositories wg-translations#20 is approved

References

This contribution is part of the FC-0012 project which is sparked by the Translation Infrastructure update OEP-58.

Up-to-date project overview and details are available in the Approach Memo and Technical Discovery: Translations Infrastructure Implementation document.

Join the conversation on Open edX Slack #translations-project-fc-0012.

Check the links above for full information about the overall project.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @OmarIthawi! Please note that it may take us up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

Feel free to add as much of the following information to the ticket as you can:

• supporting documentation
• Open edX discussion forum threads
• timeline information ("this must be merged by XX date", and why that is)
• partner information ("this is a course on edx.org")
• any other information that can help Product understand the context for the PR

All technical communication about the code itself will be done via the GitHub pull request interface. As a reminder, our process documentation is here.

This is currently a draft pull request. When it is ready for our review and all tests are green, click "Ready for Review", or remove "WIP" from the title, as appropriate.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch and project coverage have no change.

Comparison is base (81442be) 87.87% compared to head (0bfb817) 87.87%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1186   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.87%   87.87%           
=======================================
  Files         263      263           
  Lines        4485     4485           
  Branches     1133     1133           
=======================================
  Hits         3941     3941           
  Misses        530      530           
  Partials       14       14           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[itsjeyd]

Hey @OmarIthawi, it looks like this PR is part of FC-0012. It would probably make sense to update the title accordingly? 🙂

[OmarIthawi]

Thanks for your review @itsjeyd. I've seen you requesting this a couple of times already, so I'd like to know if this is a new requirements?

So far we've been adding the keyword FC-0012 and OEP-58 to the pull request description, so it's searcheable.

We use this GitHub pull request query so to find all related pull requests:

• All FC-0012/OEP-58 pull requests: https://github.com/pulls?q=OEP-58+FC-0012+is%3Aopen+is%3Apr

So I think it makes sense to keep the pull request title intact, but I'd like to hear from you as well.

[itsjeyd]

@OmarIthawi Thanks for the quick reply! It definitely makes sense to mention these keywords in the PR description. I mainly suggested to add the FC-0012 identifier to the title because @sarina had mentioned it here. I don't know if it's a hard requirement, though 🙂

From the perspective of OSPR management (which @mphilbrick211 and I are responsible for), what I will say is that having FC identifiers in PR titles makes it a bit easier to distinguish them from "regular" contributions. And that is helpful because FC PRs sometimes have different reviewers than regular PRs, and Michelle and I need to take that into account when pinging people for engineering review.

[OmarIthawi]

Makes sense @itsjeyd. We'll add it for new PRs.

[OmarIthawi]

We've duplicated our work 😓, my bad for making a task for the learning app again for my colleague.

Closing in favor of #1198

[openedx-webhooks]

@OmarIthawi Even though your pull request wasn’t merged, please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.