fix(db): retain notification_deliveries on the same 90d schedule as webhook_events

[galuis116]

Summary

• Add { table: "notification_deliveries", column: "created_at", days: 90 } to RETENTION_POLICY, matching the append-only sibling webhook_events.
• Use anonymous ? cutoff binds in pruneExpiredRecords so node:sqlite tests (and D1) bind reliably.
• Add a prune test that deletes expired notification_deliveries rows and keeps recent ones.

Closes #8899

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npx vitest run test/unit/retention.test.ts -t "notification_deliveries|webhook_events older|policy only targets" (3 passed)
• npx vitest run test/unit/selfhost-pg-retention.test.ts -t "translates the numbered" (1 passed — cutoff still becomes $1)
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Narrow retention-policy addition; focused vitest cover. Full monorepo typecheck/coverage not re-run locally.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

N/A — DB retention policy only; no UI surface change.

Notes

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.58%. Comparing base (1eeaae1) to head (6452275).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8941      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.56%   90.58%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          96       97       +1     
  Lines       22490    22547      +57     
  Branches     3884     3904      +20     
==========================================
+ Hits        20367    20424      +57     
  Misses       1945     1945              
  Partials      178      178              

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	100.00% <100.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/db/retention.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 14:19:15 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR adds notification_deliveries to RETENTION_POLICY with the same 90d window as webhook_events, and separately fixes retentionWhere to use anonymous `?` binds instead of numbered `?1` since node:sqlite's DatabaseSync rejects numbered binds — both changes are correct given only one placeholder is ever bound per query call in pruneExpiredRecords. The new test correctly seeds notification_deliveries rows at 100/95/1 days old and verifies exactly the 2 old rows are pruned while the recent one is kept, matching the real code path (not a fabricated scenario). The diff is narrow, well-tested, and consistent with the existing sibling pattern for webhook_events.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/db/retention.ts:31 — the `90` day literal is unexplained by itself, but this matches the existing convention of inline day literals for every other RETENTION_POLICY entry, so it's not a new inconsistency.
• test/unit/retention.test.ts's new notification_deliveries test doesn't assert the RETENTION_POLICY membership check inline with the other prune tests' style — minor structural nit, not a defect.
• Confirm there's no existing migration gap for notification_deliveries — since the test only inserts, it implies the table already exists pre-PR, so no migration is needed for this policy-only change.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#8899
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 1858 registered-repo PR(s), 1210 merged, 54 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	galuis116; Gittensor profile; 1858 PR(s), 54 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds the exact RETENTION_POLICY entry requested for notification_deliveries with a 90-day window matching webhook_events, and includes a dedicated test that inserts old/recent rows and confirms pruneExpiredRecords deletes only the expired ones via the existing index.

Review context

• Author: galuis116
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: JavaScript, Python, TypeScript, Dart, HTML, MDX, Rust, C++
• Official Gittensor activity: 1858 PR(s), 54 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.