fix: make api_keys.user_id index explicit in model

[seapagan]

What

Add index=True to the user_id field in the ApiKey model.

Why

The index was created by the original migration but wasn't marked in the model. This makes the model match the database schema and prevents confusion when running alembic autogenerate.

References

• Related to SECURITY-REVIEW.md #16

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores

  • Improved database performance for API key operations by adding an index to the user reference to speed up lookups.

• Documentation

  • Updated security review notes to explain the index alignment between the model and the database schema.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Added an index declaration to the user_id foreign key column in the ApiKey model and updated the security review documentation to reflect that the index was created by a migration and is now represented in the model.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Model change app/models/api_key.py	user_id field updated from mapped_column(ForeignKey("users.id")) to mapped_column(ForeignKey("users.id"), index=True) — adds an index annotation on the foreign key column.
Documentation update SECURITY-REVIEW.md	Expanded issue description for missing DB index, noted the index was created by a migration, and updated location/reference to app/models/api_key.py:22 including the index=True code snippet.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Poem

🐰 A tiny hop, a tidy tweak,
I marked the key where lookups seek,
Migration kept the ground in place,
Now model matches database grace,
Hooray — quick queries in a blink! 🥕✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: adding an explicit index annotation to the user_id field in the ApiKey model.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.00% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 100.00%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (63a0dcb)	2440	2440	100.00%
Head commit (69b662e)	2440 (+0)	2440 (+0)	100.00% (+0.00%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#816)	1	1	100.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences