fix: Fixed numeric filtering issue in Superset

[Sayan199]

SUMMARY

Fixes #33206

BEFORE/AFTER SCREENSHOTS OR ANIMATED GIF

TESTING INSTRUCTIONS

In order to test this, we need to

1. Add a filter for a numeric field that contains both integer and decimal values (e.g., 21, 21.8, 25.35, etc.).
2. First select an integer value (for example, 21) in the filter, and then fractional values.
   This should now be able to filter and give results that do match with 21 but also with 21.8 and 25.35

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• Has associated issue: Incorrect filtering for numeric values with different decimal precision #33206
• Required feature flags:
• Changes UI
• Includes DB Migration (follow approval process in SIP-59)
  • Migration is atomic, supports rollback & is backwards-compatible
  • Confirm DB migration upgrade and downgrade tested
  • Runtime estimates and downtime expectations provided
• Introduces new feature or API
• Removes existing feature or API

[korbit-ai]

Review by Korbit AI

Korbit automatically attempts to detect when you fix issues in new commits.

Category	Issue	Status
	Missing temporal range value handling explanation ▹ view	🧠 Not in standard

Files scanned

​

File Path	Reviewed
superset/models/helpers.py	✅

Explore our documentation to understand the languages and file types we support and the files we ignore.

Check out our docs on how you can make Korbit work best for you and your team.

Loving Korbit!? Share us on LinkedIn Reddit and X

[rusackas]

Looks like there are a bunch of CI tasks failing, but we should probably start by running pre-commit to fix the linting/formatting issues, and see if anything else gets unblocked.

Superset uses Git pre-commit hooks courtesy of pre-commit. To install run the following:

pip3 install -r requirements/development.txt
pre-commit install
A series of checks will now run when you make a git commit.

Alternatively it is possible to run pre-commit by running pre-commit manually:

pre-commit run --all-files

[michael-s-molina]

Possible duplicate of #33230

[rusackas]

@Sayan199 curious if you're able to fix the CI issues, or if you think this is indeed a duplicate of #33230 (where you're also welcome to review or add thoughts)

[bito-code-review]

Code Review Agent Run #73fd41

Actionable Suggestions - 0

Review Details

• Files reviewed - 1 · Commit Range: db19474..15172eb

  • superset/models/helpers.py
• Files skipped - 0
• Tools

  • Whispers (Secret Scanner) - ✔︎ Successful
  • Detect-secrets (Secret Scanner) - ✔︎ Successful
  • MyPy (Static Code Analysis) - ✔︎ Successful
  • Astral Ruff (Static Code Analysis) - ✔︎ Successful

---

Bito Usage Guide

Commands

Type the following command in the pull request comment and save the comment.

• /review - Manually triggers a full AI review.

• /pause - Pauses automatic reviews on this pull request.

• /resume - Resumes automatic reviews.

• /resolve - Marks all Bito-posted review comments as resolved.

• /abort - Cancels all in-progress reviews.

Refer to the documentation for additional commands.

Configuration

This repository uses Superset You can customize the agent settings here or contact your Bito workspace admin at evan@preset.io.

Documentation & Help

• Customize agent settings
• Review rules
• General documentation
• FAQ

AI Code Review powered by

[rusackas]

Thanks for the contribution. After reviewing the diff more carefully, there's a structural bug that would need to be addressed: the if target_generic_type == utils.GenericDataType.BOOLEAN block and final return value at the bottom of handle_single_value were accidentally dedented out of that nested function into the outer filter_values_handler scope, which would break boolean filter handling.

The possible duplicate (#33230) was also closed without merging, so that concern is moot, but the underlying fix here needs another look before it would be safe to merge.

[rusackas]

Marking as draft until it an get further attention.

[rusackas]

Thanks for the contribution, @Sayan199. As noted in review, the diff has a structural bug — the BOOLEAN branch and the final return value in handle_single_value got dedented out of the intended block — and it's been idle since. Closing this draft; the underlying issue #33206 stays open and we'll pick it back up there (ideally with a regression test). Feel free to reopen a fresh PR if you'd like to continue.