[FC-0009] feat: For LTI 1.1, show a warning in Studio if lti_id is not right

[bradenmacdonald]

This adds a new warning in Studio for LTI 1.1/1.2 consumer components if the specified lti_id is not valid for the current course. It doesn't block you from setting an invalid ID, in case you're setting the ID first in the XBlock, then later in Advanced Settings.

Private-ref: MNG-3638

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @bradenmacdonald! 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.

Please let us know once your PR is ready for our review and all tests are green.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and no project coverage change.

Comparison is base (f247cfc) 97.74% compared to head (9abedc9) 97.75%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #378 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 97.74% 97.75% ======================================= Files 77 77 Lines 6353 6371 +18 ======================================= + Hits 6210 6228 +18 Misses 143 143 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | unittests | `97.75% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openedx#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Impacted Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/openedx/xblock-lti-consumer/pull/378?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openedx) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [lti\_consumer/lti\_xblock.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/openedx/xblock-lti-consumer/pull/378?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openedx#diff-bHRpX2NvbnN1bWVyL2x0aV94YmxvY2sucHk=) | `96.48% <100.00%> (+0.05%)` | :arrow_up: | | [lti\_consumer/tests/unit/test\_lti\_xblock.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/openedx/xblock-lti-consumer/pull/378?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=openedx#diff-bHRpX2NvbnN1bWVyL3Rlc3RzL3VuaXQvdGVzdF9sdGlfeGJsb2NrLnB5) | `99.22% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[Agrendalath]

@bradenmacdonald, it's unrelated to this PR, but I noticed a race condition when there are multiple LTI Consumer XBlocks in a single unit. The first block has a correct LTI ID, and the second one has an incorrect one. I didn't change anything between these screenshots - I only refreshed the page.

The first refresh

The second refresh

Should we open a new issue?

[bradenmacdonald]

@Agrendalath Thanks for the review! I see you're a CC here, so is this good to merge now?

Should we open a new issue?

Looks like we should to me, yep. Thanks for noticing that.

[openedx-webhooks]

@bradenmacdonald 🎉 Your pull request was merged! Please take a moment to answer a two question survey so we can improve your experience in the future.