Custom to read with Rashi's commentary and encountered a verse that Rashi only partially commented on

A verse that Rashi only partially commented on - is it sufficient to read this commentary, or should one complete the commentary on the rest of the verse by reading the translation?

It seems that one fulfills the obligation with the part that Rashi commented on.

It is explained in the later authorities (Responsa Maharam Mintz, Siman 87, Mishna Berura 285:5) that verses without Rashi's commentary should be read three times, and it implies that parts of verses without Rashi's commentary do not require additional reading (see Biur Halacha, s.v. 'translation' at the end), and there (in Shulchan Aruch 285:2) it is explained that according to the basic law, Rashi's commentary suffices [without translation], and it is not explained there that words in a verse without Rashi's commentary need to be read three times, and this is found in almost every verse where Rashi does not comment on every word. From this, it implies that Rashi's commentary on the words he commented on suffices, only one needs to understand the reason for this - if we say that words Rashi did not comment on are self-explanatory - then verses Rashi did not comment on are also self-explanatory - and then why would one need to read the verse three times, and this requires study. Azmera Leshimcha (79-80)