Modernize python tooling

[salman2013]

Modernizes the Python tooling for this repo in three phases, aligning with the Open edX org standard established in openedx/sample-plugin.

Ticket: openedx/public-engineering#511
Parent ticket: openedx/public-engineering#506

Changes generated by Claude Sonnet 4.6 using the modernize-python-tooling skill, reviewed by a human.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @salman2013!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/axim-engineering.

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 this is ready for review. Thanks!

[irfanuddinahmad]

👋 Reviewed this against the same checklist we've been applying across the modernization effort (openedx/public-engineering#506/#511/#513/#514). A couple of things worth fixing before merge:

1. Old pypi-publish.yml is still active and will race with the new release.yml. This PR adds release.yml (OIDC-based, triggered by conventional commits on master) but doesn't remove the pre-existing .github/workflows/pypi-publish.yml, which triggers on push: tags: '*'. Once this merges and semantic-release pushes its first version tag, both workflows will fire and race to publish the same version via two different auth mechanisms (old token vs. new OIDC) — recommend deleting pypi-publish.yml as part of this PR.

2. pypa/gh-action-pypi-publish@release/v1 is a floating branch ref, not a pinned SHA. This is exactly what caused openedx/xblocks-core's release to fail with docker: manifest unknown (https://github.com/openedx/xblocks-core/actions/runs/29327012856/job/87066591905) — the ref resolved to a commit whose Docker image wasn't published on ghcr.io yet. Worth pinning to a commit SHA like the rest of this workflow's actions already are. (This traces back to openedx/sample-plugin's own reference release.yml, which has the same gap — filed openedx/sample-plugin#54 and openedx/xblocks-core#280 for that.)

Minor/non-blocking: codecov/project is currently failing — real tests and codecov/patch (100%) pass, looks like a coverage-threshold comparison issue rather than a functional problem.