feat: add overall feedback instructions to tooltip

[nsprenkle]

Previously, the Overall Feedback info tooltip was showing the "Default Feedback Text" value when we should have been showing the "Feedback Instructions".

*Notes

• We don't use "Default Feedback Text" currently. Instead we have a default placeholder text option. This might be a fix we want to do.
• There's an updated design to pull out the feedback instructions into a modal, since some course authors write a lot here, but I'm deferring that to a separate task.
• There info popover does not show on the final grade view, which it did in the old version of ORA. Possibly also worth a separate task.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.52%. Comparing base (a57c40c) to head (5d69be5).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #363      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.16%   90.52%   +0.36%     
==========================================
  Files         144      144              
  Lines        2196     2196              
  Branches      476      477       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         1980     1988       +8     
+ Misses        204      197       -7     
+ Partials       12       11       -1     

☔ 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.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR fixes the Overall Feedback info tooltip to display feedback instructions instead of default feedback text. The tooltip was incorrectly showing the "Default Feedback Text" value when it should have been showing the "Feedback Instructions" for course authors.

Key changes:

• Replaced useOverallFeedbackPrompt hook with useOverallFeedbackInstructions
• Added new useOverallFeedbackDefaultText hook for potential future use
• Updated component to use the correct data source for the tooltip

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 8 out of 9 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
src/data/services/lms/hooks/selectors/oraConfig.ts	Replaced single feedback config hook with separate hooks for default text and instructions
src/hooks/assessment.js	Updated exports to include both new feedback-related hooks
src/components/Assessment/EditableAssessment/OverallFeedback/index.jsx	Changed component to use instructions hook instead of prompt hook
src/hooks/assessment.test.js	Updated test mocks to reflect new hook names
src/components/Assessment/EditableAssessment/OverallFeedback/index.test.jsx	Updated tests and variable names to match new instructions-based implementation
src/components/Assessment/EditableAssessment/OverallFeedback/__snapshots__/index.test.jsx.snap	Updated snapshot to reflect new test-id and mock values
src/data/services/lms/hooks/selectors/index.ts	Minor code style improvements (else-if to separate if statements, formatting)
src/components/Assessment/types.ts	Changed quote style from double to single quotes

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[sarina]

I'm not quite a frontend dev, nor am I a CC on this repo, was there a specific reason I was tagged?

[nsprenkle]

I'm not quite a frontend dev, nor am I a CC on this repo, was there a specific reason I was tagged?

GitHub had suggested you as a recent contributor. I didn't realize you weren't a Maintainer here. I'll un-request you.

[nsprenkle]

Pinging @bradenmacdonald and @farhaanbukhsh

[bradenmacdonald]

I'm not involved with ORA so I have no idea about the product side of things here but I am available as a "reviewer of last resort" for any frontend PRs. The code change looks good to me.

Is there any product nuance here or is this a clear bugfix?

[nsprenkle]

I'm not involved with ORA so I have no idea about the product side of things here but I am available as a "reviewer of last resort" for any frontend PRs. The code change looks good to me.

Is there any product nuance here or is this a clear bugfix?

This is a clear bugfix, we had mapped the wrong info to this popover.

[bradenmacdonald]

OK then LGTM. Could you please rebase and drop the package-lock.json changes? I don't think any version bumps should be included in this PR.

[farhaanbukhsh]

Pinging @bradenmacdonald and @farhaanbukhsh

Thank you for tagging me but I am not a CC for this repo although I can help out in triaging but I see @bradenmacdonald has done that already and I am sorry for late reply.

[nsprenkle]

OK then LGTM. Could you please rebase and drop the package-lock.json changes? I don't think any version bumps should be included in this PR.

Have rebased and reduced the changeset to just this one tweak. Ready to merge when you are 😄

[bradenmacdonald]

@nsprenkle Thanks! Unfortunately GitHub won't let me merge this unless the patch code coverage check is passing. Would you be able to add a test that covers the missing lines in src/data/services/lms/hooks/selectors/index.ts, or mark them as ignored if you think a test is unreasonable?

[nsprenkle]

@nsprenkle Thanks! Unfortunately GitHub won't let me merge this unless the patch code coverage check is passing. Would you be able to add a test that covers the missing lines in src/data/services/lms/hooks/selectors/index.ts, or mark them as ignored if you think a test is unreasonable?

I don't think a test is unreasonable but I will voice annoyance that this PR is being blocked because existing tests are insufficient. There is a 0% project delta, but several of the lines I changed (due to new linting rules) never had tests, which is what it's complaining about.

I can fix that, but I don't think it should have had to be in the scope of this PR.

[bradenmacdonald]

@nsprenkle I completely understand. On the authoring MFE where I'm the maintainer, I have the discretion to merge PRs without the project check passing for exactly that reason. But I'm not a maintainer here and barely work with this repo at all, so I don't have that power. Next time, you could ping Sarina to do the merge anyways if you think it makes sense.

[nsprenkle]

@nsprenkle I completely understand. On the authoring MFE where I'm the maintainer, I have the discretion to merge PRs without the project check passing for exactly that reason. But I'm not a maintainer here and barely work with this repo at all, so I don't have that power. Next time, you could ping Sarina to do the merge anyways if you think it makes sense.

Appreciate the insight! Should be unblocked now on my end with most recent commit. Ready to merge at your leisure.