docs: add ADR for authorization schema source tracking

[rodmgwgu]

Problem

The authorization schema loading pipeline needs a documented decision record explaining how schema definitions and their source are tracked before the implementation lands.

Approach

Adds ADR 0025-authorization-schema-source-tracking.rst describing the source-tracking design.

AI Usage

Kiro was used to assist on research and write the ADR with human guidance and validation.

---

Stack (1/3) — split from a single combined commit for reviewability:

1. This PR — ADR doc (base: main)
2. rod/authz-schema-files — authz schema YAML files (base: this branch)
3. rod/authz-schema-loader — schema loading pipeline (base: PR 2)

Merge checklist:

• Version bumped
• Changelog record added
• Documentation updated (not only docstrings)
• Fixup commits are squashed away
• Unit tests added/updated
• Manual testing instructions provided
• Noted any: Concerns, dependencies, migration issues, deadlines, tickets

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @rodmgwgu!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/committers-openedx-authz.

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.

[BryanttV]

Thanks! I have a few questions.

[mariajgrimaldi]

Can we include how each of these tables will be used? I think the storage approach for both dynamic and static rules should be covered in a separate ADR. Also that ADR should also explain how these tables relate to ExtendedCasbinRule and its current fields. I think it'd be a good continuation of: #422 (store, however we want to call the lifecycle phase)

What do you think?

[rodmgwgu]

Originally, I thought on using ExtendedCasbinRule for tracking this, however decided on not using it because it is more geared towards assignments (g rules), and is one-to-one related to the corresponding CasbinRule, while we could have more than one contributing source for a single role or permission.

Also to avoid confusions and keep concerns separated.

[mariajgrimaldi]

nit: I think we should shared vocabulary for this. Maybe we can call the built-in roles built-in (come with deployment) and user-defined those added by extensions, or any other alternative

[rodmgwgu]

agree, this is confusing, on other ADRs we were talking about static vs dynamic right? I think we can keep those, I'll update the text to reflect that.

[rodmgwgu]

Mmm after reading it again, the actual distinction we want here is the "roles that come with Open edX" vs "roles added by another module or plugin", however, technically there shouldn't be any difference between roles that come with Open edX and the ones added by a module, as we will be using the same mechanism to register them anyways.

I'l revise this text to make this clearer.

[mariajgrimaldi]

This makes total sense to me! Excited to see what comes out of this :)

I think we could consider this ADR as done, if we need any changes then we can implement them retroactively. One note though, this ADR defines two things: storage of these definitions after compilation and the derivability of sources, not sure if it'd be better to split them. I'll let it up to you to decide!