bito-code-review[bot] commented on code in PR #42863:
URL: https://github.com/apache/superset/pull/42863#discussion_r3731774320
##########
superset/tasks/deletion_retention.py:
##########
@@ -280,7 +280,17 @@ def _purge_one(
removed_dashboard_slices=result.removed_dashboard_slices,
)
elif result.blocked_reason is not None:
- audit.block(record_id)
+ disposition: audit.RetentionBlockedDisposition = (
+ audit.finalize_retention_blocked(record_id)
+ )
+ if disposition == "suppressed":
+ stats_logger_manager.instance.incr(
+ f"{_METRIC_PREFIX}.blocked_audit_suppressed"
+ )
+ elif disposition == "fallback":
+ stats_logger_manager.instance.incr(
+ f"{_METRIC_PREFIX}.blocked_audit_dedupe_fallback"
+ )
Review Comment:
<div>
<div id="suggestion">
<div id="issue"><b>Missing retained disposition metric</b></div>
<div id="fix">
`finalize_retention_blocked` can return `"retained"` (when the row is
already finalized or has a non-retention trigger; audit.py line 318), but the
diff only handles `"suppressed"` and `"fallback"`. The `"retained"` disposition
is silently ignored and produces no metric, creating an observability gap. Add
the missing branch to emit `deletion_retention.blocked_audit_retained` for
completeness.
</div>
</div>
<small><i>Code Review Run #8e2f54</i></small>
</div>
---
Should Bito avoid suggestions like this for future reviews? (<a
href=https://alpha.bito.ai/home/ai-agents/review-rules>Manage Rules</a>)
- [ ] Yes, avoid them
##########
superset/migrations/versions/2026-08-06_18-00_b8d2f4a6c901_index_purge_audit_predecessor.py:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+# or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+# distributed with this work for additional information
+# regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+# to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+# "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+# with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+#
+# http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+#
+# Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
+# software distributed under the License is distributed on an
+# "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY
+# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
+# specific language governing permissions and limitations
+# under the License.
+"""index purge audit predecessor lookup
+
+Revision ID: b8d2f4a6c901
+Revises: c4a1b8e2d739
+Create Date: 2026-08-06 18:00:00.000000
+
+"""
+
+from superset.migrations.shared.utils import create_index, drop_index
+
+# revision identifiers, used by Alembic.
+revision: str = "b8d2f4a6c901"
+down_revision: str = "c4a1b8e2d739"
Review Comment:
<div>
<div id="suggestion">
<div id="issue"><b>Migration lineage break</b></div>
<div id="fix">
The `down_revision` points to `c4a1b8e2d739` (a Databend SSL migration)
instead of `e7d93a524ff6` (which creates the `purge_audit_log` table). The
correct chain is: `d3b9a1f6c204` → `e7d93a524ff6` → `b8d2f4a6c901`. Alembic
will fail to generate or apply this migration with the current reference,
breaking the migration history.
</div>
</div>
<small><i>Code Review Run #8e2f54</i></small>
</div>
---
Should Bito avoid suggestions like this for future reviews? (<a
href=https://alpha.bito.ai/home/ai-agents/review-rules>Manage Rules</a>)
- [ ] Yes, avoid them
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
