chore: mirror sandbox requirements from openedx-platform

[MoisesGSalas]

Part of openedx/openedx-platform#36639

This mirrors the files in openedx-platform/requirements/edx-sandbox.

I didn't add the releases directory because we can simply use the base.txt and point to a particular git revision of this repository.

I also didn't include the common constraints in the base.in file because it didn't make much sense to me given that the sandbox virtualenv is independent. I can add it if it's needed.

Here's the diff of the base.txt after running make compile-requirements

 cffi==2.0.0
     # via cryptography
 chem==2.0.0
-    # via -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    # via -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
 click==8.3.1
     # via nltk
 codejail-includes==2.0.0
-    # via -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    # via -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
 contourpy==1.3.3
     # via matplotlib
 cryptography==45.0.7
-    # via
-    #   -c requirements/constraints.txt
-    #   -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    # via -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
 cycler==0.12.1
     # via matplotlib
 fonttools==4.62.1
@@ -28,8 +26,7 @@ kiwisolver==1.5.0
     # via matplotlib
 lxml[html-clean]==5.3.2
     # via
-    #   -c requirements/constraints.txt
-    #   -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    #   -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
     #   lxml-html-clean
     #   openedx-calc
 lxml-html-clean==0.4.4
@@ -39,25 +36,24 @@ markupsafe==3.0.3
     #   chem
     #   openedx-calc
 matplotlib==3.10.8
-    # via -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    # via -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
 mpmath==1.3.0
     # via sympy
 networkx==3.6.1
-    # via -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    # via -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
 nltk==3.9.3
     # via
-    #   -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    #   -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
     #   chem
 numpy==1.26.4
     # via
-    #   -c requirements/constraints.txt
     #   chem
     #   contourpy
     #   matplotlib
     #   openedx-calc
     #   scipy
 openedx-calc==5.0.0
-    # via -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    # via -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
 packaging==26.0
     # via matplotlib
 pillow==12.1.1
@@ -66,25 +62,25 @@ pycparser==3.0
     # via cffi
 pyparsing==3.3.2
     # via
-    #   -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    #   -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
     #   chem
     #   matplotlib
     #   openedx-calc
 python-dateutil==2.9.0.post0
     # via matplotlib
 random2==1.0.2
-    # via -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    # via -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
 regex==2026.2.28
     # via nltk
 scipy==1.17.1
     # via
-    #   -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    #   -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
     #   chem
 six==1.17.0
     # via python-dateutil
 sympy==1.14.0
     # via
-    #   -r requirements/edx-sandbox/base.in
+    #   -r requirements/sandbox/base.in
     #   openedx-calc
 tqdm==4.67.3
     # via nltk

Merge checklist:
Check off if complete or not applicable:

• Changelog record added
• Documentation updated (not only docstrings)
• 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 @moisesgsalas.

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.

[mphilbrick211]

@openedx/axim-engineering would someone be able to review?

[kdmccormick]

Thanks for doing this.

[kdmccormick]

I didn't add the releases directory because we can simply use the base.txt and point to a particular git revision of this repository.

Can you explain more? The purpose of the release.txt files and the changelog is that it makes it very obvious to operators which requirements go with which releases and how the sandbox environment changes every release. Installing base.txt from specific commits would technically work but I fear that it would be less clear for operators how to safely upgrade.

[MoisesGSalas]

The logic is that the base.txt for a given release will be the one in openedx/codejail-service with the corresponding tag (e.g. release/ulmo.1). By default the tutor plugin will install the base.txt for the given OPENEDX_COMMON_VERSION.

In case you need to use a different set of dependencies you will use some mechanism that the plugin offers to retrieve the file from a different source. At the moment is a mix of docker build args and Tutor settings, but could probably be simplified to only Tutor settings.

I agree that keeping the changelog is valuable. What I think is confusing is keeping the snapshot of the files when that is already being done by git (although this move loses the previous versions).

[kdmccormick]

@MoisesGSalas Ah, I didn't realize SANDBOX_DEPS_VERSION could be easily configured to be different from the version of the codejail-service repository. Nice, I agree that this is much better than copying the text file every release 👍🏻

Where do you propose the changelog is kept? Named release notes, or part of this repo?

We'll need to update this part of the release process. I'm happy to help rewrite that part, let me know what you think would make sense for a process.

[MoisesGSalas]

I think the Named release notes is the better place. I myself go there first when I need to handle a particular upgrade.

I think removing the segment altogether is enough? The release manager shouldn't need to do anything in this repository besides tagging via the repo-tools script.

I don't know what would be the best way to catch breaking changes when upgrading the requirements in order to add them to the notes.

[kdmccormick]

In the past, I've made notes of two types of things:

• major version bumps in any sandbox packages, particularly scipy and numpy
• dropping of support for a python version

Maybe it could be a regularly scheduled task for the codejail-service maintainer to check those during each named release period and add it to the operator notes? https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/COMM/pages/5331222534/Verawood+-+Operator+Release+Notes

[MoisesGSalas]

Yeah that makes sense, specially if the maintainer is the one that merges the weekly requirements upgrade anyways, so they can leave a note in the PR and collect them later at the time of release.