[Task]: replace extended-choices with django enum classes

[eviljeff]

Description

In django5.2 django-extended-choices appears incompatible - its relying on some internals that have changed in django. The last commit in the repo is 7 years ago. The are other alternative dependencies, but if we can use vanilla django IntegerChoices it should be more maintainable in the future.

Acceptance Criteria

• don't define our constants with extended-choices; use django enums

┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Task

[ioanarusiczki]

This is kind of a whole of codebase change. The abuse api code uses choices extensively, so you could poke around with that; NeedsHumanReview.REASONS gets used in usual ways in the reviewer tools (dynamic subsets that are passed down to Addon querysets), so that could be tested; generally everywhere/everything.

So the idea is to resolve reports/appeals using as many reason choices as possible from Cinder and rev tools ? Or would just rev tools be enough ? Speaking of rev tools, there is a difference between dev and stage meaning on dev there is a switch active cinder_policy_review_reasons_enabled
while on stage it's flipped off, would this affect things ?

[eviljeff]

I'm not really sure what's affected and how - it should be all functionally the same as now, but there could be a bug tests didn't find. My recommendation would be to try as many different tools/integrations, but trivially rather than everything (breadth rather than depth). i.e. you don't need to try every reason, just one or two. Try to submit one abuse report with legal categories, to check that they're saved correctly. Similarly with the reviewer tools, just check the NHR reason filtering on the queue page works with one or two different NHR reasons.

[ioanarusiczki]

So I left the switch I was talking about active on dev and looked around, I will make some testing over abuse reports on Thursday on stage and I'll try to resolve choosing various reasons.

But on dev it looks good:

• I sent reports for all reasons - checked against admin dev abuse reports ✅

• Approve action from Cinder ✅
  https://mozilla-staging.cinderapp.com/investigate/amo_addon/640449/

• rejected or disabled addons picking different reasons ✅
  https://reviewers.addons-dev.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/640450
  https://reviewers.addons-dev.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/640451
  https://reviewers.addons-dev.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/640514

• disabling from Cinder ✅

  From AMO dev listings queue
  https://reviewers.addons-dev.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review/640515
  https://reviewers.addons-dev.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review/640516

  From Legal queue
  https://reviewers.addons-dev.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/640517

  From T&S Escalations, resolve with Ignore policy an abuse report.

• checking the emails sent , they all had the chosen reasons. ✅

[ioanarusiczki]

So nothing suspicious

More testing on stage:

Various reject reasons, sent on email too ✅
https://reviewers.addons.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/2253206

Cinder disable-enable ✅
https://reviewers.addons.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review/2253197

Rejected from rev tools, appeal sent, approved ✅
https://reviewers.addons.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/2253198

An override scenario from Cinder - override disable with approve ✅
https://reviewers.addons.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review/2253199

A promoted addon listing content rejected from Cinder ✅
https://reviewers.addons.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review/2253200

A scenario from Legal Queue ✅
https://reviewers.addons.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/2253201

A scenario from rev tools - report forwarded ✅
https://reviewers.addons.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/2253202

An appeal forwarded to rev tools ✅
https://reviewers.addons.allizom.org/en-US/reviewers/review-listed/2253204