Open xitij2000 opened 10 months ago
Thanks for the pull request, @xitij2000!
Please work through the following steps to get your changes ready for engineering review:
If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.
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:
This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...
This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.
This PR must be merged by XX date because ...
This is for a course on edx.org.
If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.
This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-frontend
. Tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for review.
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:
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:
:bulb: As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 83.90%. Comparing base (
ad936a2
) to head (64f4e85
). Report is 71 commits behind head on master.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Hi @openedx/fed-bom @openedx/2u-fed-bom! (not sure which group to use). This is ready for review. Thanks!
Hi @openedx/2u-fed-bom! Just following up on this :)
could please provide some more context of this change and its impact
I've updated the PR description, do tell if there is need for additional context or info.
(This started as a conversation in #wg-frontend. Transcribing here.)
This looks like it would be useful, so I don't want to get in the way. At the same time, I think it would make a lot of sense if we could, instead of adding explicit support for GTM in frontend-platform, make it so that people could add any such script they want without having to submit it upstream. The advantages being:
* For the user: no need to try and get it merged * For the maintainer: no need to make sure specific providers continue to work, are compliant, etc
I'm thinking that if one could define GoogleTagManagerLoader in an array of such loaders in
env.config.js
with a predefined name... say,externalScripts
? Then all we need to do here is make sure thatinitialize()
also (or instead) looks for external scripts that come fromenv.config
.Thoughts?
I already replied there but my only issue with reading externalScripts
from env.config.js
is that we can use a plugin mechanism to auto-load it instead. i.e. auto-populate that array with all packages following the pattern @openedx-plugins/frontend-platform-script-*
.
Of course, someone can just install the package and manually populate it as well, and that will likely be simpler. I can work on that approach when we have the capacity to continue this work.
auto-populate that array with all packages following the pattern @openedx-plugins/frontend-platform-script-*
I think that's a fine idea. I figure we could support both mechanisms, though. Auto- and manual loading.
Hi @xitij2000 - just checking in to see if this is still in progress?
Hi @xitij2000 - just checking in to see if this is still in progress?
Sorry for the late reply. I'm hoping to work on this in an upcoming sprint.
This change adds support for Google Tag Manager along with some common options for Google Tag Manager.
Google Tag Manager is a tag management system that can be used for conversion tracking, analytics etc. This change will allow configuring and using GTM in addition to Google Analytics.