feat: add authz schema policy renderer

[rodmgwgu]

Problem

A compiled schema carries bare identifiers; the enforcer stores namespaced Casbin p rows. Something has to translate between the two, and it has to be the single place that applies the namespacing — two places would drift, and a later comparison against the stored policy would silently stop matching (ADR 0018 §5).

Approach

• openedx_authz/engine/renderer.py — PolicyRow, RenderedPolicy, policy_row(), PolicyRenderer
• openedx_authz/tests/schema/test_renderer.py

render() emits one p row per (role, permission, supported scope), applies the internal form (role^, act^, <scope>^*) at this boundary, and is deterministic so the output can be diffed against a stored policy. It emits definition rows only — never g assignments or legacy g2 action inheritance — so data owned by other services is out of reach by construction.

The render phase is pure: no Casbin, no Django, no database. The apply phase, which does touch both, is the next PR in the stack.

Manual testing instructions

pytest openedx_authz/tests/schema/test_renderer.py

Rollback plan

Revert this PR. Nothing consumes the renderer yet, so the revert is inert.

Retro compatibility

No authorization behavior changes. Rendering produces rows in memory and writes nothing.

AI Usage

Kiro was used to assist on feature planning and implementation. Implementation was done step by step with human guidance and validation, based on the ADRs.

---

Stack (6/8) — #446 split into reviewable pieces. Bases chain bottom-up; merge in order.

1. feat: add authz schema discovery #474 — schema discovery
2. feat: add authz schema loading #475 — schema loading
3. feat: add authz schema compilation #476 — schema compilation
4. feat: add authz schema validation #477 — schema validation
5. feat: add authz schema definition models #478 — definition models + migration
6. This PR — policy renderer (base: rod/authz-schema-models)
7. rod/authz-schema-applier — schema applier
8. feat: add authz schema pipeline and load_authz_schema command #446 — pipeline + load_authz_schema command, version bump and changelog

In #446 render and apply shared one 686-line module. They are split here so the pure, easily-reviewed render step is not bundled with the transactional apply step; 7/8 adds the rest of the same file.

Merge checklist:

• Version bumped — deferred to 8/8 so the stack does not conflict on every restack
• Changelog record added — deferred to 8/8
• Documentation updated (not only docstrings) — covered by the already-merged ADRs
• Fixup commits are squashed away
• Unit tests added/updated
• Manual testing instructions provided
• Noted any: Concerns, dependencies, migration issues, deadlines, tickets — depends on feat: add authz schema definition models #478; no migration

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @rodmgwgu!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-openedx-authz.

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.

Details

---

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.

[mariajgrimaldi]

Just a few comments for you to review!

[mariajgrimaldi]

Don't have this already defined in data.py?

[rodmgwgu]

Not everything was defined in data.py, I refactored it to move missing ones there and have everything in one place. Thanks!

[mariajgrimaldi]

This looks more than a constructor that should be part of PolicyRow?

[rodmgwgu]

You are right, changed it.

[mariajgrimaldi]

LGTM! Thanks so much :))

[mariajgrimaldi]

I think we've been calling it assignment

[rodmgwgu]

Assignment would be when we assign a role to a user over a scope. Here we are assigning a permission to a role, I have been using grant to design this since ADR 0025 I think.

These terms are confusing sometimes... What do you think about this idea of using "assignment" for user-role, and "grant" for role-permission?