Fix retry

[NxPKG]

User description

(Please add to the PR name the issue/s that this PR would close if merged by using a Github keyword. Example: <feature name>. Closes #999. If your PR is made by a single commit, please add that clause in the commit too. This is all required to automate the closure of related issues.)

Description

Please include a summary of the change and link to the related issue.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected).

Checklist

• I have read and understood the rules about how to Contribute to this project
• The pull request is for the branch develop
• A new plugin (analyzer, connector, visualizer, playbook, pivot or ingestor) was added or changed, in which case:
  • I strictly followed the documentation "How to create a Plugin"
  • Usage file was updated.
  • Advanced-Usage was updated (in case the plugin provides additional optional configuration).
  • I have dumped the configuration from Django Admin using the dumpplugin command and added it in the project as a data migration. ("How to share a plugin with the community")
  • If a File analyzer was added and it supports a mimetype which is not already supported, you added a sample of that type inside the archive test_files.zip and you added the default tests for that mimetype in test_classes.py.
  • If you created a new analyzer and it is free (does not require any API key), please add it in the FREE_TO_USE_ANALYZERS playbook by following this guide.
  • Check if it could make sense to add that analyzer/connector to other freely available playbooks.
  • I have provided the resulting raw JSON of a finished analysis and a screenshot of the results.
  • If the plugin interacts with an external service, I have created an attribute called precisely url that contains this information. This is required for Health Checks.
  • If the plugin requires mocked testing, _monkeypatch() was used in its class to apply the necessary decorators.
  • I have added that raw JSON sample to the MockUpResponse of the _monkeypatch() method. This serves us to provide a valid sample for testing.
• If external libraries/packages with restrictive licenses were used, they were added in the Legal Notice section.
• Linters (Black, Flake, Isort) gave 0 errors. If you have correctly installed pre-commit, it does these checks and adjustments on your behalf.
• I have added tests for the feature/bug I solved (see tests folder). All the tests (new and old ones) gave 0 errors.
• If changes were made to an existing model/serializer/view, the docs were updated and regenerated (check CONTRIBUTE.md).
• If the GUI has been modified:
  • I have a provided a screenshot of the result in the PR.
  • I have created new frontend tests for the new component or updated existing ones.
• After you had submitted the PR, if DeepSource, Django Doctors or other third-party linters have triggered any alerts during the CI checks, I have solved those alerts.

Important Rules

• If you miss to compile the Checklist properly, your PR won't be reviewed by the maintainers.
• Everytime you make changes to the PR and you think the work is done, you should explicitly ask for a review. After being reviewed and received a "change request", you should explicitly ask for a review again once you have made the requested changes.

---

PR Type

Bug fix

---

Description

• Fixed a bug in the get_configurations method of api_app/queryset.py by correcting the queryset filtering logic.
• Changed the filter criteria from config__pk to config_id to ensure correct retrieval of configurations.
• Updated the model reference to use field.related_model for improved accuracy.

---

Changes walkthrough 📝

	Relevant files
Bug fix	queryset.py Fix queryset filtering logic in get_configurations method api_app/queryset.py Fixed the queryset filtering logic in get_configurations method. Changed the filter criteria from config__pk to config_id. Updated the model reference to use field.related_model. +3/-1

---

💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This PR fixes a bug in the get_configurations method by modifying how related configurations are queried. The implementation changes from using a direct model reference to accessing the related model through the field descriptor, and updates the field name used in the filter.

No diagrams generated as the changes look simple and do not need a visual representation.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Modified the configuration retrieval query to use the correct field descriptor and ID reference	Changed from using direct model.config.objects to model.config.field.related_model.objects Updated filter field from config__pk to config_id	api_app/queryset.py

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time. You can also use
  this command to specify where the summary should be inserted.

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[codiumai-pr-agent-free]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2 🔵🔵⚪⚪⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Code Validation Verify that using config_id instead of config__pk maintains the same functionality and doesn't break any existing queries or relationships Performance Impact Check if accessing field.related_model has any performance implications compared to direct model access

[deepsource-io]

Here's the code health analysis summary for commits 43b36db..a9793a7. View details on DeepSource ↗.

Analysis Summary

Analyzer	Status	Summary	Link
Python	✅ Success		View Check ↗
Docker	✅ Success		View Check ↗

---

💡 If you’re a repository administrator, you can configure the quality gates from the settings.

[codiumai-pr-agent-free]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Score
General	Use more stable model reference to prevent potential runtime errors Use a direct model reference instead of accessing through field.related_model to avoid potential AttributeError if the field relationship changes. api_app/queryset.py [696-698] -return self.model.config.field.related_model.objects.filter( +return self.model.config.model.objects.filter( pk__in=self.values("config_id") ) Apply this suggestion Suggestion importance[1-10]: 7 Why: Using field.related_model is more fragile as it relies on internal Django field attributes. Using .model is a more stable and documented way to access the related model, reducing the risk of runtime errors if the field implementation changes.	7

💡 Need additional feedback ? start a PR chat

[codiumai-pr-agent-free]

CI Failure Feedback 🧐

Action: backend-tests

Failed stage: Docker debug [❌]

Failure summary: The action failed because it attempted to retrieve logs from a Docker container named threatmatrix_uwsgi, which does not exist. This resulted in an error response from the Docker daemon.

Relevant error logs: 1: ##[group]Operating System 2: Ubuntu ... 170: inflating: test_files/urls2.xls 171: ##[group]Run docker ps -a 172: �[36;1mdocker ps -a�[0m 173: �[36;1mdocker logs threatmatrix_uwsgi�[0m 174: �[36;1mdocker logs threatmatrix_daphne�[0m 175: shell: /usr/bin/bash -e {0} 176: ##[endgroup] 177: CONTAINER ID IMAGE COMMAND CREATED STATUS PORTS NAMES 178: Error response from daemon: No such container: threatmatrix_uwsgi 179: ##[error]Process completed with exit code 1.

---

✨ CI feedback usage guide:

---

The CI feedback tool (/checks) automatically triggers when a PR has a failed check.
The tool analyzes the failed checks and provides several feedbacks:

• Failed stage
• Failed test name
• Failure summary
• Relevant error logs

In addition to being automatically triggered, the tool can also be invoked manually by commenting on a PR:

/checks "https://github.com/{repo_name}/actions/runs/{run_number}/job/{job_number}"

where {repo_name} is the name of the repository, {run_number} is the run number of the failed check, and {job_number} is the job number of the failed check.

Configuration options

• enable_auto_checks_feedback - if set to true, the tool will automatically provide feedback when a check is failed. Default is true.
• excluded_checks_list - a list of checks to exclude from the feedback, for example: ["check1", "check2"]. Default is an empty list.
• enable_help_text - if set to true, the tool will provide a help message with the feedback. Default is true.
• persistent_comment - if set to true, the tool will overwrite a previous checks comment with the new feedback. Default is true.
• final_update_message - if persistent_comment is true and updating a previous checks message, the tool will also create a new message: "Persistent checks updated to latest commit". Default is true.

See more information about the checks tool in the docs.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @NxPKG - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

Overall Comments:

• Please provide a proper description of what retry issue this PR is fixing and fill out the PR template completely. The title and description should clearly explain the problem being solved and why this change fixes it.

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}