search

mitodl / mit_lti_flask_sample

a sample LTI provider using the PyLTI library and the Flask framework
23 stars 44 forks source link

Updates required for Heroku Deploy to work out of box. #40

Open indagation opened 5 years ago

indagation commented 5 years ago

I am working on some documentation for our course teams that want to use/create LTI Providers. I couldn't get the Heroku deploy working. I ended up figuring it out, but it required some updates to requirements and the python version. Also the two issues https://github.com/mitodl/mit_lti_flask_sample/issues/36 and https://github.com/mitodl/mit_lti_flask_sample/issues/35#issuecomment-344729801

Can both be resolved by simply quoting out the changes in config.py.

Also, edX is asking that we use lti_consumer as the advanced module. Presumably just to reduce confusion. lti still doesn't break, but it doesn't give you an option to add new lti components unless you have lti_consumer.

Also added a bit of wording in the readme to clarify the client key and client secret.

pdpinch commented 5 years ago

Oh wow, this repo doesn't have Travis or Coverage set up?

@indagation have you run the tests locally to see that things pass with your code changes? I'm actually wondering if you should split the docs and the code into separate PRs.

@mitodl/devops do you have an opinion about making the key optional? I actually can't remember why went that route -- I don't expect you know either though.

indagation commented 5 years ago

I have tested and run the sample app. It deploys properly and runs in the state that I submitted. It currently breaks in its existing state on three accounts, python version, ssl considerations caused by the consumer_key_pem, and uwsgi version.

On Feb 25, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Peter Pinch notifications@github.com wrote:

Oh wow, this repo doesn't have Travis or Coverage set up?

@indagation https://github.com/indagation have you run the tests locally to see that things pass with your code changes? I'm actually wondering if you should split the docs and the code into separate PRs.

@mitodl/devops https://github.com/orgs/mitodl/teams/devops do you have an opinion about making the key optional? I actually can't remember why went that route -- I don't expect you know either though.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/mitodl/mit_lti_flask_sample/pull/40#issuecomment-467068347, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACRPrUSPJoH6ol8Rfh6bXVYEjqtk54LRks5vRAkkgaJpZM4bQJ3r.

blarghmatey commented 5 years ago

I have no opinions on the key, but if needed I can do the digging necessary to form one.