Repository navigation
[v3-4-test] Fix stale queued asset rows in scheduler cleanup and readiness (#76002) - #76039
Merged
Merged
Conversation
(cherry picked from commit 9e662c2)
vatsrahul1001
requested review from
Lee-W,
XD-DENG and
uranusjr
as code owners
October 30, 2026 14:33
ashb
approved these changes
Oct 30, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Backport of #76002 to
v3-4-test. Auto-backport failed to apply cleanly, so this is a manual backport.Fixes stale queued asset rows (ADRQ) not being cleared in scheduler cleanup/readiness — follow-up to #75943 (unbounded IN lists for queued asset events).
Conflict resolution: the only conflict was in
scheduler_job_runner.pymodule constants. #76002 adds_ADRQ_DELETE_CHUNK_SIZEnext to the pre-existingMAX_TI_REFILL_QUERIES_PER_LOOP. The latter belongs to a task-instance-refill feature that is not onv3-4-test(0 usages there), so it was brought in only as context — I kept_ADRQ_DELETE_CHUNK_SIZE(used by the batched ADRQ delete) and droppedMAX_TI_REFILL_QUERIES_PER_LOOPto avoid an unused/dead constant. The rest applied cleanly; no test references the dropped constant.(cherry picked from commit 9e662c2)
Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 4.8) following the guidelines