# Axim Funded Contribution: ProctorTrack Removal
**URL:** https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993
**Category:** Collaborative Proposals
**Created:** [September 3, 2025, 5:08pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993 "2025-09-03T17:08:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@kmccormick](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/kmccormick)
#### Post date: [September 3, 2025, 5:08pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/1 "2025-09-03T17:08:17Z")
Hello all! Axim Collaborative is pleased to announce a new funded contribution project to help advance the Open edX platform.
The goal of this project is to assist in the **removal of explicit ProctorTrack references and dependencies** from the core codebases while **maintaining** **compatibility with the existing [edx-proctoring-proctortrack](https://github.com/anupdhabarde/edx-proctoring-proctortrack) plugin**.
We expect this project can be accomplished with one or a small number of software engineers. No UX development and minimal project management is required. There will be a small number of updates to documentation and user-facing display strings that software developers should be able to manage themselves.
## Technical spec
Milestones:
1. Introduce a requires\_escalation\_email option
2. Introduce a show\_review\_rules option
3. Remove or modify comments and display strings that reference Proctortrack
4. Search for and remove any remaining Proctortrack references or dependencies
Please see [[DEPR]: edx-proctoring-proctortrack and create\_zendesk\_tickets](https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/issues/36329) for context and details. In particular, the **Axim FC Tasks** section of the DEPR issue contains more details on each of the four milestones.
The best proposals will have technical details about how this specification will be implemented (links to relevant code areas would be ideal), with a breakdown of level of effort and hours required for each milestone.
## Timeline
We are seeking proposals from existing community members as well as qualified organizations looking for a first project to join the community. All proposals from providers interested in undertaking this work must be submitted by **9/24/2025** and Axim expects to choose a provider by **10/8/2025**.
Those interested in submitting proposals should send them to Kyle McCormick ([kyle@axim.org](mailto:kyle@axim.org)) and Sarina Canelake ([sarina@axim.org](mailto:sarina@axim.org)). Questions about this project should be directed in the comments section below.
---
### Author:  [@Chris\_Beach](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/Chris_Beach)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2025, 3:00pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/2 "2025-09-17T15:00:33Z")
Hello Kyle!
My team has been reviewing your post and have some questions as we are building a proposal:
- What is the definition of ‘Done’ for this effort (Merged PR, Open edX release, etc)?
- What is the timeline for the work to be completed?
- There are references to other types of proctoring besides ‘proctortrack’ in the Open edX repos:
- There are quite a few open edX repos affected (ie that ‘proctortrack’ appears in). Are there any repos that are out of scope?
- There are a sizable number of translated user-facing message files with ‘proctortrack’. Is it in scope to translate the English user-facing messages into the non-English languages?
- Since ProctorTrack will still be able to be included as an external dependency, should additional tests be set up, or leave that testing to the adopters?
- Due to the comment in [https://github.com/openedx/edx-proctoring/blob/b4914198abad7c26fd98ec82639646d6354481f0/edx\_proctoring/api.py#L1774](https://github.com/openedx/edx-proctoring/blob/b4914198abad7c26fd98ec82639646d6354481f0/edx_proctoring/api.py#L1774) , once ‘proctortrack’ is removed, is the only way to test an escalation email to add ProctorTrack back in as an external build dependency?
- Regarding the 4th milestone in the CFP, besides the work 2U is handling, what is an example of a ProctorTrack dependency that would need removal?
- Where should the ‘requires\_escalation\_email’ option be leveraged?
- Where should the ‘show\_review\_rules’ option be leveraged?
Thank you,
Chris
---
### Author:  [@kmccormick](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/kmccormick)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2025, 4:08pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/3 "2025-09-17T16:08:21Z")
Thank you for the great questions @Chris_Beach .
> What is the definition of ‘Done’ for this effort (Merged PR, Open edX release, etc)
PRs merged.
> What is the timeline for the work to be completed?
Before the Teak cutoff (April 2026) would be ideal.
> Software\_secure
Software Secure is another proctoring backend that has some hard-coded references in edx-platform. We are not looking to clean that up as part of this FC, but we would definitely not want to add any new Software Secure references nor make it the default. For that particular script you linked, I would prefer for the script to fail if no backend is provided rather than assuming software\_secure.
No need to test Software Secure as part of this RFP.
> Mockprock
[Mockprock](https://github.com/openedx/mockprock) is our fake proctoring backend, which we use to manually test the Open edX proctoring interface without having to interface with real provider. It would be useful to confirm that the changes in this FC do not break Mockprock.
It’s OK to have some hard-codings of Mockprock, as long as they are only in test code.
> There are quite a few open edX repos affected (ie that ‘proctortrack’ appears in). Are there any repos that are out of scope?
All repos are in scope, but if a proctortrack reference has no impact on the platform, the build, or the docs, then it does not necessarily need to be removed. For example, the references in openedx-translations, openedx-repo-health, and edx-enterprise are all downstream artifacts of our automated tooling, and will be updated automatically over time. And [this bit of a readme](https://github.com/openedx/repo-tools/blob/48f4342f898bb774ecac0c6e9098398386aef7c1/edx_repo_tools/find_dependencies/README.rst?plain=1#L191) is harmless, and could be left in place. There will be some judgement involved.
> There are a sizable number of translated user-facing message files with ‘proctortrack’. Is it in scope to translate the English user-facing messages into the non-English languages?
Nope, translating the new strings is out of scope.
> Since ProctorTrack will still be able to be included as an external dependency, should additional tests be set up, or leave that testing to the adopters?
We would like to be confident that the external ProctorTrack plugin still works at the end of the FC. From my knowledge of the plugin, I believe manual testing would be sufficient. If you feel that new automated tests are warranted, though, feel free to include that in your proposal and we’ll consider it.
> Where should the ‘requires\_escalation\_email’ option be leveraged?
Currently, we ask authors for an escalation email if-and-only-if the backend is proctortrack. The `requires_escalation_email` is flag is meant to be the drop-in replacement for “if-and-only-if the backend is proctortrack”.
> Where should the ‘show\_review\_rules’ option be leveraged?
It should be used whenever we need to determine whether to include “Review Rules” as a field on the proctoring configuration form. Currently, this logic includes reference to a waffle flag (`SHOW_REVIEW_RULES`) and check that the backend is ProctorTrack, both of which we’d like removed.
---
### Author:  [@Chris\_Beach](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/Chris_Beach)
#### Post date: [September 17, 2025, 7:28pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/4 "2025-09-17T19:28:34Z")
I appreciate the reply @kmccormick !
Could you also offer some guidance on the question:
> Regarding the 4th milestone in the CFP, besides the work 2U is handling, what is an example of a ProctorTrack dependency that would need removal?
An additional question:
- What environments (OSes) should the FC be tested on? I know there is a manual test matrix for browsers to test against ( [GitHub - openedx/browserslist-config](https://github.com/openedx/browserslist-config) ) , but I haven’t seen a manual test matrix for OSes.
Thank you!
Chris
---
### Author:  [@Chris\_Beach](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/Chris_Beach)
#### Post date: [September 19, 2025, 8:38pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/5 "2025-09-19T20:38:05Z")
Hi @kmccormick in addition to the two questions above, could you provide insight into:
- For the kinds of PRs that this CF will entail, would you want mobile testing to be included?
- Are there Open edX sandbox site(s) available that we could deploy our changes to for ease of QA?
---
### Author:  [@Chris\_Beach](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/Chris_Beach)
#### Post date: [September 23, 2025, 2:23pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/6 "2025-09-23T14:23:30Z")
Hi @kmccormick ! With the impending FC proposal deadline coming up, could you please provide insight into my additional questions soon?
Thanks,
Chris
---
### Author:  [@kmccormick](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/kmccormick)
#### Post date: [September 24, 2025, 1:37pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/7 "2025-09-24T13:37:36Z")
> [@Chris\_Beach](#):
>
> Regarding the 4th milestone in the CFP, besides the work 2U is handling, what is an example of a ProctorTrack dependency that would need removal?
Here’s one reference: [edx-platform/Makefile at master · openedx/edx-platform · GitHub](https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/blob/master/Makefile#L38-L39)
As for dependencies, I’ve done a cursory search and did not find any, so there may be none to fix.
> [@Chris\_Beach](#):
>
> - For the kinds of PRs that this CF will entail, would you want mobile testing to be included?
No need.
> [@Chris\_Beach](#):
>
> - Are there Open edX sandbox site(s) available that we could deploy our changes to for ease of QA?
There are not.
---
### Author:  [@kmccormick](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/kmccormick)
#### Post date: [September 24, 2025, 1:38pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/8 "2025-09-24T13:38:40Z")
We will be extending the deadline for proposals to **end-of-day** **Friday, 26 September.**
---
### Author:  [@Chris\_Beach](https://discuss.openedx.org/u/Chris_Beach)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2025, 2:56pm UTC](https://discuss.openedx.org/t/axim-funded-contribution-proctortrack-removal/16993/9 "2025-09-25T14:56:37Z")
Thanks for the additional details @kmccormick !