QA fixes in the extractor code

[felipemontoya]

This pull request improves the quality of the structure function of it. I found this while working on something else and I decided to commit it in its own PR.

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @felipemontoya!

This repository is currently maintained by @felipemontoya.

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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.22%. Comparing base (a794e3c) to head (29efbea).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #140   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.22%   91.22%           
=======================================
  Files          51       51           
  Lines        4547     4549    +2     
  Branches      276      276           
=======================================
+ Hits         4148     4150    +2     
  Misses        311      311           
  Partials       88       88           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	91.22% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR improves the reliability and readability of the Open edX component extractor utilities, primarily by avoiding import-time access to a potentially-missing Django setting and by cleaning up string/log formatting.

Changes:

• Lazily fetch AI_EXTENSIONS_FIELD_FILTERS via a helper to prevent import-time failures and to allow tests/runtime overrides to take effect.
• Refactor embedded-content extraction strings and logging calls for cleaner formatting and consistency.
• Reformat a few list literals / comprehensions for readability.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

_get_field_filters() can return a non-dict value (e.g., None or a misconfigured setting), but _is_field_allowed() assumes a mapping and lists. This will raise at runtime when calling .get() or doing fname in allowed_fields. Consider normalizing here (e.g., filters = getattr(..., None) or {} and verify isinstance(filters, dict); similarly coerce missing/None allowed lists to empty lists) so field extraction degrades safely under misconfiguration.