Fix /ui/assets picking a stale "last event" under concurrent asset writes by takayoshi-makabe · Pull Request #71047 · apache/airflow

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-04T02:35:13Z

generate_assets_with_last_event_query() picked the latest AssetEvent per asset using MAX(id). Under concurrent writes to the same asset,the order rows arrive at the database doesn't reliably match the order their timestamps were computed, so a row can get a lower id while carrying a later timestamp. MAX(id) then surfaces a stale event as "latest," which /ui/assets displays, sorts, and filters by. Concurrent writes to the same asset are a known hotspot here (#62501, #69977).

public/assets.py already resolves the equivalent query correctly, grouping by MAX(timestamp) first and using MAX(id) only to break exact ties. This mirrors that approach, keeping AssetEvent joined directly in the outer query so the existing last_asset_event_timestamp sort/filter parameters keep working unchanged.

(Note added 2026-08-06, per feedback from @steveahnahn)
This change also fixes the default sort order (last_asset_event_timestamp desc), not just the displayed value — the sort was previously fed by a stale "last event" the same way the display was.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

Yes (please specify the tool below)

Claude Code

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @takayoshi-makabe · by @potiuk · 2026-08-13 12:55 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

❌ Merge conflicts. See docs.

Full list of what we check: Pull Request quality criteria.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

steveahnahn

Nice work on the PR! It may be worth noting in the description that this also fixes the sort, not just the displayed value: the default sort is last_asset_event_timestamp desc, fed by the highest-id event.

Checked the cost since it adds an aggregate to an unbounded table and it looks good.

One nit is MAX(id) tiebreaker among rows sharing the max timestamp is new and untested.

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-06T05:43:57Z

@steveahnahn
Thanks for the review!
I've added the unit test:
ea35697

…ites

pierrejeambrun

LGTM, thanks

github-actions · 2026-08-28T14:32:12Z

Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-3-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker fdb8594 v3-3-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.

pierrejeambrun · 2026-09-04T10:26:02Z

Removed backports, depends on PR not backported. #69940

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-04T02:35:13Z

generate_assets_with_last_event_query() picked the latest AssetEvent per asset using MAX(id). Under concurrent writes to the same asset,the order rows arrive at the database doesn't reliably match the order their timestamps were computed, so a row can get a lower id while carrying a later timestamp. MAX(id) then surfaces a stale event as "latest," which /ui/assets displays, sorts, and filters by. Concurrent writes to the same asset are a known hotspot here (#62501, #69977).

public/assets.py already resolves the equivalent query correctly, grouping by MAX(timestamp) first and using MAX(id) only to break exact ties. This mirrors that approach, keeping AssetEvent joined directly in the outer query so the existing last_asset_event_timestamp sort/filter parameters keep working unchanged.

(Note added 2026-08-06, per feedback from @steveahnahn)
This change also fixes the default sort order (last_asset_event_timestamp desc), not just the displayed value — the sort was previously fed by a stale "last event" the same way the display was.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

Yes (please specify the tool below)

Claude Code

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @takayoshi-makabe · by @potiuk · 2026-08-13 12:55 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

❌ Merge conflicts. See docs.

Full list of what we check: Pull Request quality criteria.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

steveahnahn

Nice work on the PR! It may be worth noting in the description that this also fixes the sort, not just the displayed value: the default sort is last_asset_event_timestamp desc, fed by the highest-id event.

Checked the cost since it adds an aggregate to an unbounded table and it looks good.

One nit is MAX(id) tiebreaker among rows sharing the max timestamp is new and untested.

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-06T05:43:57Z

@steveahnahn
Thanks for the review!
I've added the unit test:
ea35697

…ites

pierrejeambrun

LGTM, thanks

github-actions · 2026-08-28T14:32:12Z

Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-3-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker fdb8594 v3-3-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.

pierrejeambrun · 2026-09-04T10:26:02Z

Removed backports, depends on PR not backported. #69940

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-04T02:35:13Z

generate_assets_with_last_event_query() picked the latest AssetEvent per asset using MAX(id). Under concurrent writes to the same asset,the order rows arrive at the database doesn't reliably match the order their timestamps were computed, so a row can get a lower id while carrying a later timestamp. MAX(id) then surfaces a stale event as "latest," which /ui/assets displays, sorts, and filters by. Concurrent writes to the same asset are a known hotspot here (#62501, #69977).

public/assets.py already resolves the equivalent query correctly, grouping by MAX(timestamp) first and using MAX(id) only to break exact ties. This mirrors that approach, keeping AssetEvent joined directly in the outer query so the existing last_asset_event_timestamp sort/filter parameters keep working unchanged.

(Note added 2026-08-06, per feedback from @steveahnahn)
This change also fixes the default sort order (last_asset_event_timestamp desc), not just the displayed value — the sort was previously fed by a stale "last event" the same way the display was.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

Yes (please specify the tool below)

Claude Code

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @takayoshi-makabe · by @potiuk · 2026-08-13 12:55 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

❌ Merge conflicts. See docs.

Full list of what we check: Pull Request quality criteria.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

steveahnahn

Nice work on the PR! It may be worth noting in the description that this also fixes the sort, not just the displayed value: the default sort is last_asset_event_timestamp desc, fed by the highest-id event.

Checked the cost since it adds an aggregate to an unbounded table and it looks good.

One nit is MAX(id) tiebreaker among rows sharing the max timestamp is new and untested.

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-06T05:43:57Z

@steveahnahn
Thanks for the review!
I've added the unit test:
ea35697

…ites

pierrejeambrun

LGTM, thanks

github-actions · 2026-08-28T14:32:12Z

Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-3-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker fdb8594 v3-3-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.

pierrejeambrun · 2026-09-04T10:26:02Z

Removed backports, depends on PR not backported. #69940

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-04T02:35:13Z

generate_assets_with_last_event_query() picked the latest AssetEvent per asset using MAX(id). Under concurrent writes to the same asset,the order rows arrive at the database doesn't reliably match the order their timestamps were computed, so a row can get a lower id while carrying a later timestamp. MAX(id) then surfaces a stale event as "latest," which /ui/assets displays, sorts, and filters by. Concurrent writes to the same asset are a known hotspot here (#62501, #69977).

public/assets.py already resolves the equivalent query correctly, grouping by MAX(timestamp) first and using MAX(id) only to break exact ties. This mirrors that approach, keeping AssetEvent joined directly in the outer query so the existing last_asset_event_timestamp sort/filter parameters keep working unchanged.

(Note added 2026-08-06, per feedback from @steveahnahn)
This change also fixes the default sort order (last_asset_event_timestamp desc), not just the displayed value — the sort was previously fed by a stale "last event" the same way the display was.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

Yes (please specify the tool below)

Claude Code

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @takayoshi-makabe · by @potiuk · 2026-08-13 12:55 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

❌ Merge conflicts. See docs.

Full list of what we check: Pull Request quality criteria.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

steveahnahn

Nice work on the PR! It may be worth noting in the description that this also fixes the sort, not just the displayed value: the default sort is last_asset_event_timestamp desc, fed by the highest-id event.

Checked the cost since it adds an aggregate to an unbounded table and it looks good.

One nit is MAX(id) tiebreaker among rows sharing the max timestamp is new and untested.

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-06T05:43:57Z

@steveahnahn
Thanks for the review!
I've added the unit test:
ea35697

…ites

pierrejeambrun

LGTM, thanks

github-actions · 2026-08-28T14:32:12Z

Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-3-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker fdb8594 v3-3-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.

pierrejeambrun · 2026-09-04T10:26:02Z

Removed backports, depends on PR not backported. #69940

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-04T02:35:13Z

generate_assets_with_last_event_query() picked the latest AssetEvent per asset using MAX(id). Under concurrent writes to the same asset,the order rows arrive at the database doesn't reliably match the order their timestamps were computed, so a row can get a lower id while carrying a later timestamp. MAX(id) then surfaces a stale event as "latest," which /ui/assets displays, sorts, and filters by. Concurrent writes to the same asset are a known hotspot here (#62501, #69977).

public/assets.py already resolves the equivalent query correctly, grouping by MAX(timestamp) first and using MAX(id) only to break exact ties. This mirrors that approach, keeping AssetEvent joined directly in the outer query so the existing last_asset_event_timestamp sort/filter parameters keep working unchanged.

(Note added 2026-08-06, per feedback from @steveahnahn)
This change also fixes the default sort order (last_asset_event_timestamp desc), not just the displayed value — the sort was previously fed by a stale "last event" the same way the display was.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

Yes (please specify the tool below)

Claude Code

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @takayoshi-makabe · by @potiuk · 2026-08-13 12:55 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

❌ Merge conflicts. See docs.

Full list of what we check: Pull Request quality criteria.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

steveahnahn

Nice work on the PR! It may be worth noting in the description that this also fixes the sort, not just the displayed value: the default sort is last_asset_event_timestamp desc, fed by the highest-id event.

Checked the cost since it adds an aggregate to an unbounded table and it looks good.

One nit is MAX(id) tiebreaker among rows sharing the max timestamp is new and untested.

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-06T05:43:57Z

@steveahnahn
Thanks for the review!
I've added the unit test:
ea35697

…ites

pierrejeambrun

LGTM, thanks

github-actions · 2026-08-28T14:32:12Z

Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-3-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker fdb8594 v3-3-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.

pierrejeambrun · 2026-09-04T10:26:02Z

Removed backports, depends on PR not backported. #69940

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-04T02:35:13Z

generate_assets_with_last_event_query() picked the latest AssetEvent per asset using MAX(id). Under concurrent writes to the same asset,the order rows arrive at the database doesn't reliably match the order their timestamps were computed, so a row can get a lower id while carrying a later timestamp. MAX(id) then surfaces a stale event as "latest," which /ui/assets displays, sorts, and filters by. Concurrent writes to the same asset are a known hotspot here (#62501, #69977).

public/assets.py already resolves the equivalent query correctly, grouping by MAX(timestamp) first and using MAX(id) only to break exact ties. This mirrors that approach, keeping AssetEvent joined directly in the outer query so the existing last_asset_event_timestamp sort/filter parameters keep working unchanged.

(Note added 2026-08-06, per feedback from @steveahnahn)
This change also fixes the default sort order (last_asset_event_timestamp desc), not just the displayed value — the sort was previously fed by a stale "last event" the same way the display was.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

Yes (please specify the tool below)

Claude Code

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @takayoshi-makabe · by @potiuk · 2026-08-13 12:55 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

❌ Merge conflicts. See docs.

Full list of what we check: Pull Request quality criteria.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

steveahnahn

Nice work on the PR! It may be worth noting in the description that this also fixes the sort, not just the displayed value: the default sort is last_asset_event_timestamp desc, fed by the highest-id event.

Checked the cost since it adds an aggregate to an unbounded table and it looks good.

One nit is MAX(id) tiebreaker among rows sharing the max timestamp is new and untested.

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-06T05:43:57Z

@steveahnahn
Thanks for the review!
I've added the unit test:
ea35697

…ites

pierrejeambrun

LGTM, thanks

github-actions · 2026-08-28T14:32:12Z

Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-3-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker fdb8594 v3-3-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.

pierrejeambrun · 2026-09-04T10:26:02Z

Removed backports, depends on PR not backported. #69940

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-04T02:35:13Z

generate_assets_with_last_event_query() picked the latest AssetEvent per asset using MAX(id). Under concurrent writes to the same asset,the order rows arrive at the database doesn't reliably match the order their timestamps were computed, so a row can get a lower id while carrying a later timestamp. MAX(id) then surfaces a stale event as "latest," which /ui/assets displays, sorts, and filters by. Concurrent writes to the same asset are a known hotspot here (#62501, #69977).

public/assets.py already resolves the equivalent query correctly, grouping by MAX(timestamp) first and using MAX(id) only to break exact ties. This mirrors that approach, keeping AssetEvent joined directly in the outer query so the existing last_asset_event_timestamp sort/filter parameters keep working unchanged.

(Note added 2026-08-06, per feedback from @steveahnahn)
This change also fixes the default sort order (last_asset_event_timestamp desc), not just the displayed value — the sort was previously fed by a stale "last event" the same way the display was.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

Yes (please specify the tool below)

Claude Code

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @takayoshi-makabe · by @potiuk · 2026-08-13 12:55 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

❌ Merge conflicts. See docs.

Full list of what we check: Pull Request quality criteria.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

steveahnahn

Nice work on the PR! It may be worth noting in the description that this also fixes the sort, not just the displayed value: the default sort is last_asset_event_timestamp desc, fed by the highest-id event.

Checked the cost since it adds an aggregate to an unbounded table and it looks good.

One nit is MAX(id) tiebreaker among rows sharing the max timestamp is new and untested.

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-06T05:43:57Z

@steveahnahn
Thanks for the review!
I've added the unit test:
ea35697

…ites

pierrejeambrun

LGTM, thanks

github-actions · 2026-08-28T14:32:12Z

Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-3-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker fdb8594 v3-3-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.

pierrejeambrun · 2026-09-04T10:26:02Z

Removed backports, depends on PR not backported. #69940

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-04T02:35:13Z

generate_assets_with_last_event_query() picked the latest AssetEvent per asset using MAX(id). Under concurrent writes to the same asset,the order rows arrive at the database doesn't reliably match the order their timestamps were computed, so a row can get a lower id while carrying a later timestamp. MAX(id) then surfaces a stale event as "latest," which /ui/assets displays, sorts, and filters by. Concurrent writes to the same asset are a known hotspot here (#62501, #69977).

public/assets.py already resolves the equivalent query correctly, grouping by MAX(timestamp) first and using MAX(id) only to break exact ties. This mirrors that approach, keeping AssetEvent joined directly in the outer query so the existing last_asset_event_timestamp sort/filter parameters keep working unchanged.

(Note added 2026-08-06, per feedback from @steveahnahn)
This change also fixes the default sort order (last_asset_event_timestamp desc), not just the displayed value — the sort was previously fed by a stale "last event" the same way the display was.

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

Yes (please specify the tool below)

Claude Code

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments. You can add this file in a follow-up commit after the PR is created so you know the PR number.

Important

🛠️ Maintainer triage note for @takayoshi-makabe · by @potiuk · 2026-08-13 12:55 UTC

Helpful heads-up from the maintainers — please address before this PR can be reviewed:

❌ Merge conflicts. See docs.

Full list of what we check: Pull Request quality criteria.

The ball is in your court — you've been assigned to this PR. Fix the above, then mark it Ready for review.

_{Automated triage — may be imperfect; a maintainer takes the next look.}

steveahnahn

Nice work on the PR! It may be worth noting in the description that this also fixes the sort, not just the displayed value: the default sort is last_asset_event_timestamp desc, fed by the highest-id event.

Checked the cost since it adds an aggregate to an unbounded table and it looks good.

One nit is MAX(id) tiebreaker among rows sharing the max timestamp is new and untested.

takayoshi-makabe · 2026-08-06T05:43:57Z

@steveahnahn
Thanks for the review!
I've added the unit test:
ea35697

…ites

pierrejeambrun

LGTM, thanks

github-actions · 2026-08-28T14:32:12Z

Backport failed to create: v3-3-test. View the failure log Run details

Note: As of Merging PRs targeted for Airflow 3.X
the committer who merges the PR is responsible for backporting the PRs that are bug fixes (generally speaking) to the maintenance branches.

In matter of doubt please ask in #release-management Slack channel.

Status	Branch	Result
❌	v3-3-test

You can attempt to backport this manually by running:

cherry_picker fdb8594 v3-3-test

This should apply the commit to the v3-3-test branch and leave the commit in conflict state marking
the files that need manual conflict resolution.

After you have resolved the conflicts, you can continue the backport process by running:

cherry_picker --continue

If you don't have cherry-picker installed, see the installation guide.

pierrejeambrun · 2026-09-04T10:26:02Z

Removed backports, depends on PR not backported. #69940

takayoshi-makabe requested review from bugraoz93, choo121600, ephraimbuddy, henry3260, jason810496, pierrejeambrun, rawwar and shubhamraj-git as code owners August 4, 2026 02:35

boring-cyborgBot added the area:API Airflow's REST/HTTP API label Aug 4, 2026

steveahnahn approved these changes Aug 5, 2026
View reviewed changes

steveahnahn approved these changes Aug 7, 2026
View reviewed changes

potiuk marked this pull request as draft August 13, 2026 13:00

potiuk assigned takayoshi-makabe Aug 13, 2026

takayoshi-makabe added 2 commits August 14, 2026 12:28

Fix /ui/assets picking a stale "last event" under concurrent asset wr…
c84ff1a
…ites

Add Unit Test
ebc3acf

takayoshi-makabe force-pushed the fix-ui-assets-latest-event-timestamp-ordering branch from ea35697 to ebc3acfCompare August 14, 2026 03:30

takayoshi-makabe marked this pull request as ready for review August 14, 2026 05:19

pierrejeambrun approved these changes Aug 28, 2026
View reviewed changes

pierrejeambrun added this to the Airflow 3.3.2 milestone Aug 28, 2026

pierrejeambrun added the backport-to-v3-3-test Backport to v3-3-test label Aug 28, 2026

pierrejeambrun merged commit fdb8594 into apache:mainAug 28, 2026
152 checks passed

takayoshi-makabe deleted the fix-ui-assets-latest-event-timestamp-ordering branch August 28, 2026 19:54

pierrejeambrun removed this from the Airflow 3.3.2 milestone Sep 4, 2026

pierrejeambrun removed the backport-to-v3-3-test Backport to v3-3-test label Sep 4, 2026