docs: instructor grading api spec

[wgu-jesse-stewart]

Issue: 37647

Description

docs: Add ADRs and OpenAPI specifications for Instructor Dashboard v2 API

This PR adds architectural decision records (ADRs) and OpenAPI specifications for the modernized Instructor Dashboard API endpoints. These documentation files provide the design rationale and technical contracts for the v2 API implementation.

Changes:

• ADR for Course Information API (0001-course-info-api-spec.rst) - documents the design of existing consolidated course metadata endpoint
• OpenAPI spec for Course Info endpoints (instructor-v2-course-info-spec.yaml) - specification for existing course info and task listing endpoints
• ADR for Grading API (0002-instructor-grading-api-spec.rst) - proposes RESTful grading operations with sync/async execution models
• OpenAPI spec for Grading endpoints (instructor-v2-grading-api-spec.yaml) - specification for proposed grading endpoints

User roles impacted:

• Developers - provides clear API contracts and design rationale for implementing/consuming the v2 API
• Operators - helps understand the architecture and behavior of instructor dashboard endpoints

Supporting information

Related to the Instructor Dashboard modernization effort. These documents establish the foundation for migrating instructor dashboard functionality to RESTful patterns and supporting MFE development.

Testing instructions

This is documentation only - no functional testing required. Reviewers should:

1. Verify ADRs follow the standard format and contain clear rationale
2. Confirm OpenAPI specs are valid (can be validated with tools like Swagger Editor)
3. Check that the design decisions align with Open edX best practices

Deadline

None

Other information

• These are documentation-only changes with no runtime dependencies
• The Course Info API OpenAPI spec documents existing implemented endpoints
• The Grading API OpenAPI spec serves as the contract for future implementation work
• ADRs document the "why" behind design decisions for the v2 API architecture

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @wgu-jesse-stewart!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/wg-maintenance-edx-platform.

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.

[rodmgwgu]

Looking good, just added a comment.

Also, I see that there are some Merge commits for syncing with master, I think we should rebase instead and remove those commits.

[wgu-jesse-stewart]

Looking good, just added a comment.

Also, I see that there are some Merge commits for syncing with master, I think we should rebase instead and remove those commits.

I think that is what happens when syncing a branch in the github ui - I will avoid doing that in the future and be sure to squash and merge this PR

[dwong2708]

LGTM, thanks!

[wgu-taylor-payne]

This sounds like a reasonable structure and direction to me. Thanks for the write-up on this. @feanil did you want to weigh in on this?

[feanil]

One note, otherwise looks good to me as well. Feel free to add some more detail if it makes sense, but I don't think you need to block on me to merge this if you're happy with it.

[feanil]

For clarification, this spec will be the point of reference during implementation but /api-docs/ is the source of truth for what is implemented? After implementation is complete, it will only be there as a historical reference?

[wgu-jesse-stewart]

@feanil Correct - the spec guides implementation, but /api-docs/ is the source of truth for what's actually deployed.

I'd propose deleting the static spec file once the implementation is complete and the endpoints are live in /api-docs/. At that point it becomes outdated documentation that could confuse future developers. We can remove it as part of the final PR that completes the API implementation.

[feanil]

Sounds good, lets put that in the decision doc as well then I think you're good to merge.

[feanil]

No need for re-review once the decision on the spec nuance is captured.