Scope UI next_run_assets endpoint to assets the caller may read

[henry3260]

Why

GET /ui/next_run_assets/{dag_id} now redacts asset_expression through ReadableAssetsFilterDep (#72864), but the query behind the events list is still filtered by dag_id alone. The class-level requires_access_asset("GET") check passes AssetDetails(id=None) to the auth manager, because the route has no asset_id path parameter, so it only confirms the caller may read assets in general.

A caller with read access to a Dag and generic asset read permission therefore still receives the id, name, uri, asset_inactive flag and, for partitioned Dags, the received_keys / required_keys of upstream assets that a fine-grained auth manager hides from them — the names the expression just redacted come straight back in events. The sibling GET /ui/assets list endpoint already scopes its results through ReadableAssetsFilterDep; this endpoint never wired it into the query.

What

• airflow-core/src/airflow/api_fastapi/core_api/routes/ui/assets.py: apply the already-injected ReadableAssetsFilterDep to the asset query before execution, so the events list and the partitioned enrichment only cover assets the caller may read.

Note on caller-scoped counts

Unlike the asset_expression redaction in #72864, which keeps a hidden slot per unreadable asset to preserve the schedule shape, this drops unreadable rows from events entirely — a hidden asset's id / name / uri are required fields on NextRunAssetEventResponse and cannot be returned at all without reintroducing the leak.

---

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

• Yes — Claude Code (Claude Fable 5.1)

[henry3260]

Note: the asset_expression field still echoes dag_model.asset_expression unfiltered, as does the public DagDetailsResponse. That is a broader, pre-existing exposure and is out of scope here.

[rjgoyln]

Looks good to me!

Two notes below: one on the shape this gives the events list, and one on the new test's mock assertion.

Just my thoughts, feel free to resolve them.

---

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

[pierrejeambrun]

Yep, needs a UI follow up to still show 1 of 2 without disclosing more information.