docs: [FC-0074] address reviews of how-to docs

[mariajgrimaldi]

Description

Improve how-to docs based on reviews:

• Remove duplicate event bus how-to
• Add missing imports in sample code
• Update in-line code docs to reflect latest updates
• Fix broken links from event bus concrete implementation

Deadline

"None" if there's no rush, or provide a specific date or event (and reason) if there is one.

Checklists

Check off if complete or not applicable:

Merge Checklist:

• All reviewers approved
• Reviewer tested the code following the testing instructions
• CI build is green
• Version bumped
• Changelog record added with short description of the change and current date
• Documentation updated (not only docstrings)
• Integration with other services reviewed
• Fixup commits are squashed away
• Unit tests added/updated
• Noted any: Concerns, dependencies, migration issues, deadlines, tickets

Post Merge:

• Create a tag
• Create a release on GitHub
• Check new version is pushed to PyPI after tag-triggered build is
  finished.
• Delete working branch (if not needed anymore)
• Upgrade the package in the Open edX platform requirements (if applicable)

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @mariajgrimaldi!

This repository is currently maintained by @openedx/hooks-extension-framework.

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.

---

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.

[mariajgrimaldi]

@BryanttV, thank you so much for the feedback! Here's the PR with the suggested changes for you to review :)

[sarina]

Where is it said that you should use this variable name? Also is the indentation correct?

[mariajgrimaldi]

I added a description for the in-line code annotation: 77146a3

[sarina]

When merging this please ensure that the deleted file isn't referenced in docs.openedx.org

[BryanttV]

LGTM! Just a small change.

[BryanttV]

Suggested change

	# .. event_implemented_name: COURSE_ENROLLMENT_CREATED
	# .. event_implemented_name: COURSE_ENROLLMENT_CREATED
	# .. event_type: org.openedx.learning.course.enrollment.created.v1

[mariajgrimaldi]

Is this documented somewhere? We haven't used the # .. event_type annotation in services, I think.

[BryanttV]

Yum, I saw it somewhere but can't find it anymore. When it's a filter it's used. Should we also use it with events?

[mariajgrimaldi]

It'd make sense for consistency reasons, although I'm not sure how useful it is to have two ways of finding the event/filter in the code but it might be useful for future code-annotation tooling. Can we consider this as a different effort?

[BryanttV]

Yes, I agree with reviewing this as part of another effort.