feat!: remove support for local CodeJail

[MoisesGSalas]

As part of openedx/openedx-platform#36639, CodeJail won't be able to be invoked directly by openedx-platform and instead the remote CodeJail REST service will be the only interface available.

A large portion of the tests rely on executing the actual problem code so a small mock implementation of the remote CodeJail service is introduced. The mock is a wrapper around CodeJail's not_safe_exec and disregards any kind of sandboxing. Tests that validate sandboxing capabilities were removed considering the remote service has a more comprehensive testing suite.

Merge checklist:
Check off if complete or not applicable:

• Version bumped
• Changelog record added
• Documentation updated (not only docstrings)
• Fixup commits are squashed away
• Unit tests added/updated
• Manual testing instructions provided
• Noted any: Concerns, dependencies, migration issues, deadlines, tickets

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @MoisesGSalas!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/axim-engineering.

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.

🔘 Update the status of your PR

Your PR is currently marked as a draft. After completing the steps above, update its status by clicking "Ready for Review", or removing "WIP" from the title, as appropriate.

---

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.

[MoisesGSalas]

Hi @feanil, i would like a little bit of advice and what would be the best way to handle this:

A lot of the tests in here rely on running codejail locally to pass (51/814). If I configure an instance of codejail-service that listens to localhost:8550 and set ENABLE_CODEJAIL_REST_SERVICE = True in test_settings.py the whole suite passes.

Should we add an skip those fifty tests? Delete them?

[timmc-edx]

I haven't looked at the tests (the workflow run has expired) but I'm guessing that a lot of them exercise the codejail sandboxing functionality. It's probably worth removing a lot of those tests and relying on codejail-service's own test suite for that. (Maybe there are some tests we want to add on that side where coverage is missing.)

In general, I would support doing a lot of mocking here with not_safe_exec or similar.

[MoisesGSalas]

I haven't looked at the tests (the workflow run has expired) but I'm guessing that a lot of them exercise the codejail sandboxing functionality

I rebased the branch so a fresh run should be available. From what I saw, lot of failures are using the unsafe decorator to test the xblock behavior they need to run it via codejail.

I'm thinking of mocking remote_safe_exec using unsafe_exec. I will try to see how it goes.