A question about LTI provider support in Open edX

I know that GitHub - edx/xblock-lti-consumer implements the consumer side of the LTI 1.3 specification enabling integration of third-party LTI provider tools.

One thing for which I never really was able to get an “official” answer is the state of Open edX being the provider for LTI 1.3 in the future.

Is there an “official” answer documented somewhere? I am asking because our Open edX instance currently provides a lot of LTI content to our own internal Moodle instance and even to other Moodle instances on campus. It would be a shame to lose that feature.

Is there a risk that in the near future Open edX will not be able to provide LTI content to other systems?

Also, is the GitHub - edx/xblock-lti-consumer xblock installed by default in Koa and future versions of Open edX? Or is it really just an xblock add-on?

Thanks for any information you can provide.

I’m tagging a few people who might have the answers or that I know are working on the consumer xblock in the hope they can guide me to the right person to answer my questions on the provider side for LTI: @nedbat @giovannicimolin @nimisha @marcotuts


Based on 12.6.1. Reusing Course Content with LTI — Building and Running an Open edX Course documentation where it is written “This feature was a closed pilot experiment. This feature is not supported for new users.” are we supposed to interpret that Open edX no longer support the Provider function of LTI ?

An answer or at least a discussion would be greatly appreciated.

1 Like

I’ll look to see if I can find more information.

1 Like

A PR was submitted to add 1.3 support a while back, but it wasn’t officially reviewed and the author dropped it.

However, even if not perfect, it was a reasonable PR. So when a client recently approached us about Open edX integration with Canvas, we offered to implement LTI 1.3 support on top of content libraries (aka Libraries v2, aka blockstore libraries) using the lti1p3 library the aforementioned PR introduced. Here’s the proposed ADR, and the current state of the implementation.

I know this doesn’t really answer your question, @sambapete, as edX has not yet reviewed, let alone accept, this work. But at least you can rest assured that you’re not the only one worried about it. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks Adolfo. I appreciate. At least I have something I can take back to my management now.

Is there a champion for moving the PR forward? I can follow up with @marcotuts on our side and understand the history of this PR.