MallikarjunaReddyN commented on issue #40704:
URL: https://github.com/apache/superset/issues/40704#issuecomment-4677699981

   @dosu I noticed a significant difference in the structure of 
`native_filter_configuration` between Superset **6.0.0** and **6.1.0**.
   
   ### Observed Difference
   
   In **6.0.0**, filter scope information appears to be represented entirely 
through the `scope.rootPath` hierarchy. The filter scope is defined by a nested 
tab structure, and there are no explicit `tabsInScope` or `chartsInScope` 
properties present in the configuration.
   
   Example (6.0.0):
   
   ```yaml
   scope:
     rootPath:
       - TAB-QBWZ2G6H4eYOggb-kKTtR
       - TAB-cLbYE4zBIm7kl-sxGyOEa
       - TAB-LJXYDEVu6L00_3GBL8XPh
       - TAB-6EbptJ20tFMshoLI2M0XR
     excluded: []
   ```
   
   In **6.1.0**, the same filter configuration contains additional 
scope-related attributes:
   
   ```yaml
   chartsInScope:
     - 44
     - 47
     - 48
     ...
   
   tabsInScope:
     - TAB-sq-abxQyKl_5mg1nv3Eox
     - TAB-dB9DIHEdPvCY9DcWQPYDh
     ...
   
   scope:
     rootPath:
       - ROOT_ID
     excluded:
       - 43
   ```
   
   ### Impact
   
   This change introduces a version-specific difference in how filter scope is 
represented:
   
   * **6.0.0**
   
     * Scope is derived from the tab hierarchy stored in `scope.rootPath`.
     * No explicit list of tabs or charts exists in the filter configuration.
     * Consumers must infer scope from the layout structure.
   
   * **6.1.0**
   
     * Scope information is partially denormalized into explicit `tabsInScope` 
and `chartsInScope` collections.
     * `scope.rootPath` is simplified to `ROOT_ID`.
     * Filter-to-tab and filter-to-chart relationships can be determined 
directly without traversing the dashboard layout tree.
   
   ### Question
   
   Was the introduction of `tabsInScope` and `chartsInScope` in 6.1.0 an 
intentional schema change to support filter scoping and serialization, or are 
these fields considered derived/runtime metadata that should not be relied upon 
by downstream consumers?
   
   Understanding the intended contract of these fields would help when 
implementing version-compatible dashboard processing logic, as the current 
metadata structure differs significantly between 6.0.0 and 6.1.0.
   


-- 
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]

Reply via email to