fix: adds content.search to docs apps

[pomegranited]

Description

Adds openedx.core.djangoapps.content.search to the list of installed applications used by sphinx to generate the platform documentation. This app is included in the CMS django config, not the LMS, and so triggers an error without this change.

Supporting information

Fixes this error reported by @feoh on Slack #general:

RuntimeError: Model class openedx.core.djangoapps.content.search.models.SearchAccess doesn't declare an explicit app_label and isn't in an application in INSTALLED_APPS.

Private-ref: FAL-3123

Testing instructions

1. Install the docs requirements to your virtualenv: pip install -r requirements/edx/doc.txt
2. Build the docs: make docs (ok to cancel after the initial setup; this error happens early in the build)

Deadline

ASAP -- need to port to Sumac

Author Notes & Concerns

We should have caught this issue when it happened, but there's no docs validation currently in our CI.

I can add a github workflow as part of this change, to do one or more of these steps. Let me know if I should? Also asked on #wg-documentation.

1. Run make docs and just make sure it succeeds. This adds some time to the already long CI, but it's a quick thing to add.
2. Run make docs + verify that there are no changes to the built docs. This would be the next best thing to suggestion 1, and ensure that our docs are continually updated.
3. Add a new make docs-lint step to our existing list checks that uses e.g sphinx-lint to quickly verify the docs config and syntax. Also not hard to do, but wouldn't increase the CI build time as much as doing a full docs build.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @pomegranited!

What's next?

Please work through the following steps to get your changes 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.

🔘 Let us know that your PR is ready for review:

Who will review my changes?

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/wg-maintenance-edx-platform. Tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for review.

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.

[pomegranited]

Hello :) Are there any OpenCraft CC's available to review this quick change? @pkulkark @farhaanbukhsh @navinkarkera @ChrisChV @mtyaka

Or @MaferMazu from wg-documentation?

[farhaanbukhsh]

@pomegranited i can have a look in an hour 😊

[sarina]

@feanil can you comment on Jill's proposal to create a new check for docs building?

[feanil]

@pomegranited we tried adding the doc build to edx-platform but it takes over 30mins to build right now so we decided to drop it because we didn't want to block on those builds.

[sarina]

Is it possible to do a monthly build on master? or have it as a check for each named release cut? (I don't know what's possible with Actions)

[feanil]

We still build on every merge to master and build on changes to branches for all supported named releases it just doesn't show up on checks

[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.

[pomegranited]

Thanks for getting this merged and backported @sarina !

@feanil

We still build on every merge to master and build on changes to branches for all supported named releases it just doesn't show up on checks

Hmm.. so we should have seen this issue in the docs build check well before Sumac was cut.. why didn't we?

we tried adding the doc build to edx-platform but it takes over 30mins to build right now so we decided to drop it because we didn't want to block on those builds.

Any interest in trying sphinx-lint, or has that already been tried?

[feanil]

I would be up for trying sphinx-lint.

The docs build check was removed from master: #32741