feat: add never_but_include_grade visibility option

[Anas12091101]

Description

This PR introduces a new visibility option for assignment scores:

“Never show individual assessment results, but show overall assessment results after the due date.”

With this option, learners cannot see question-level correctness or scores at any time. However, once the due date has passed, they can view their overall score in the total grades section on the Progress page.

This PR should be reviewed in correspondence with openedx/frontend-app-learning#1797

Useful information to include:

• Which user roles will this change impact? Common user roles are "Learner", "Course Author",
  "Developer", and "Operator".
• Include screenshots for changes to the UI (ideally, both "before" and "after" screenshots, if applicable).

Supporting information

Proposal: https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/OEPM/pages/5150769174/Proposal+Add+option+to+show+overall+assessment+results+after+due+date+but+hide+individual+assessment+results
Internal ticket: https://github.com/mitodl/hq/issues/3859

Testing instructions

Included in openedx/frontend-app-learning#1797

Other information

Include anything else that will help reviewers and consumers understand the change.

• Does this change depend on other changes elsewhere?
• Any special concerns or limitations? For example: deprecations, migrations, security, or accessibility.

Best Practices Checklist

We're trying to move away from some deprecated patterns in this codebase. Please
check if your PR meets these recommendations before asking for a review:

• Any new files are using TypeScript (.ts, .tsx).
• Deprecated propTypes, defaultProps, and injectIntl patterns are not used in any new or modified code.
• Tests should use the helpers in src/testUtils.tsx (specifically initializeMocks)
• Do not add new fields to the Redux state/store. Use React Context to share state among multiple components.
• Use React Query to load data from REST APIs. See any apiHooks.ts in this repo for examples.
• All new i18n messages in messages.ts files have a description for translators to use.
• Imports avoid using ../. To import from parent folders, use @src, e.g. import { initializeMocks } from '@src/testUtils'; instead of from '../../../../testUtils'

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @Anas12091101!

This repository is currently maintained by @bradenmacdonald.

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.

---

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.68%. Comparing base (8fe5fb6) to head (8adc1b7).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2489   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.68%   94.68%           
=======================================
  Files        1203     1203           
  Lines       26865    26865           
  Branches     6026     6027    +1     
=======================================
  Hits        25438    25438           
- Misses       1357     1368   +11     
+ Partials       70       59   -11     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[pdpinch]

@Anas12091101 can you check off the boxes in the PR description?

[pdpinch]

In the description, you wrote, “Never show individual assessment results, but show overall assessment results after the due date” but the UI doesn't mention the due date. Is the description wrong, or do we need to change the text of the UI to mention the due date?

[Anas12091101]

In the description, you wrote, “Never show individual assessment results, but show overall assessment results after the due date” but the UI doesn't mention the due date. Is the description wrong, or do we need to change the text of the UI to mention the due date?

Thanks for catching this. I had intended to copy the description from the proposal but must have mistakenly used an AI-generated version instead. I’ve now updated the PR with the correct title and description for the new option, as well as an updated screenshot.

[asadali145]

LGTM!