[ColtenOuO]

Summary

GET /assets/{asset_id} resolves the asset's "last asset event" in two steps: it first computes max(AssetEvent.timestamp) for the asset, then re-queries the events matching that timestamp with .one_or_none(). Nothing guarantees that timestamp is unique — an asset can be updated by several tasks within the same clock tick, and the timestamp column has no uniqueness constraint. When two or more events tie on the newest timestamp, the second query returns multiple rows and SQLAlchemy raises MultipleResultsFound, which surfaces to the caller as 500 Internal Server Error instead of the asset payload.

This is the same class of bug fixed for /ui/assets in #71047 (that fix broke the tie with max(id) inside the aggregate query), but the public API endpoint was not covered by it and still carries the original two-step lookup.

Changes

• airflow-core/src/airflow/api_fastapi/core_api/routes/public/assets.py: replace the max(timestamp) subquery + .one_or_none() pair with a single ordered query — ORDER BY timestamp DESC, id DESC LIMIT 1 — so exactly one event is selected and ties are broken deterministically on the highest id, matching the /ui/assets behaviour.
• airflow-core/tests/unit/api_fastapi/core_api/routes/public/test_assets.py: add TestGetAssetEndpoint::test_should_respond_200_with_tied_last_event_timestamps, which creates two events for the same asset with identical timestamps and asserts the endpoint returns 200 with the higher event id as last_asset_event. The test returns 500 without the source change.

---

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

• Yes — Claude Code (Opus 5)

[steveahnahn]

LGTM. The id tie-break is still served by idx_asset_id_timestamp on both Postgres and MySQL, so this is also cheaper than the two-step lookup it replaces.

[potiuk]

Hello @ColtenOuO - thank you for your contributions to Apache Airflow!

The Airflow community has introduced a limit of 5 open pull requests at a time for contributors without write access to the repository. You currently have 19 open pull requests, so - as a one-time step of introducing the limit - we closed the ones where maintainers have not engaged yet:

• [AIP-94] Add airflowctl Tasks List Command #70472 - [AIP-94] Add airflowctl Tasks List Command
• Let HookToolset retry a failed tool call instead of failing the task #71853 - Let HookToolset retry a failed tool call instead of failing the task
• Fix scheduler crash when the API server response is a redirect #71962 - Fix scheduler crash when the API server response is a redirect
• Fix manually triggered runs blocking a scheduled run at the same logical_date #72003 - Fix manually triggered runs blocking a scheduled run at the same logical_date
• Fix mismatched XCom values when a dynamically mapped task has a gap #72007 - Fix mismatched XCom values when a dynamically mapped task has a gap
• Refactor schema version checks to share target-branch and worktree logic #72070 - Refactor schema version checks to share target-branch and worktree logic
• Document custom OTel metrics endpoint path support #72073 - Document custom OTel metrics endpoint path support
• Batch XCom lookups when resolving a mapped task's expand() arguments #72107 - Batch XCom lookups when resolving a mapped task's expand() arguments
• Remove redundant full-Dag TaskInstance query from the execution API task-states endpoint #72270 - Remove redundant full-Dag TaskInstance query from the execution API task-states endpoint
• Fix asset dependency graph dropping outlets for tasks that both consume and produce #72272 - Fix asset dependency graph dropping outlets for tasks that both consume and produce
• Make supervisor split-line stdout test actually cover the split in Task SDK #72585 - Make supervisor split-line stdout test actually cover the split in Task SDK
• Fix GET /assets/{asset_id} returning 500 when asset events share a timestamp #72599 - Fix GET /assets/{asset_id} returning 500 when asset events share a timestamp
• Show detailed API error messages in UI toasters #72831 - Show detailed API error messages in UI toasters

These pull requests stay open because maintainers are already engaged in them - they count towards your limit:

• Fix output type loss in AgentOperator's human-in-the-loop review #70132 - Fix output type loss in AgentOperator's human-in-the-loop review
• Decode base64 for bytes-typed HookToolset parameters #70433 - Decode base64 for bytes-typed HookToolset parameters
• Allow providers to ship testing Dags separately from example Dags #70541 - Allow providers to ship testing Dags separately from example Dags
• Reject unknown update_mask fields instead of silently ignoring them #71003 - Reject unknown update_mask fields instead of silently ignoring them
• Speed up clearing downstream tasks on large Dags #71203 - Speed up clearing downstream tasks on large Dags
• Add deadline alert coverage to Dag endpoint tests #72296 - Add deadline alert coverage to Dag endpoint tests

This is not a judgement of you or of your changes. We never told contributors before that opening many pull requests at once was a problem, so there is nothing to feel bad about - and nothing is lost: your branches, commits and the review history stay where they are.

What we ask you to do is to make your first prioritization decision: choose which of the pull requests above matter most to you, and reopen them (up to 5 open at a time, including the ones still open) with the "Reopen pull request" button or gh pr reopen <PR_NUMBER> --repo apache/airflow. Reopen the ones you are ready to follow through - keep them rebased, respond to review comments and fix failing checks.

While your pull requests are waiting for review, the most valuable thing you can do is help in other ways - reviewing other contributors' pull requests, helping with issues, and taking part in the discussions on the devlist and Slack.

Why we introduced the limit, what it means for you and how to reopen or restore a pull request is explained in https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/32_open_pull_request_limit.rst.

---

Drafted-by: Claude Code (Opus 5); reviewed by @potiuk before posting