test(workflow-operator): close the bar-chart, sentiment and user-agent gaps

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Three small workflow-operator gaps, bundled because none is worth a PR alone. 31 tests across the three specs, one of which is new.

Measured with two WorkflowOperator/jacoco runs, one fresh sbt batch JVM each, rm -rf on the jacoco dir between them, and the identical suite-name filter both times. The before run reproduced all published Codecov percentages exactly (88.2 / 90.5 / 88.0 / 85.2 / 83.3), which validates the method.

File	Codecov	JaCoCo line-hit
HuggingFaceSentimentAnalysisOpDesc.scala	22/25 = 88.0% → 25/25 = 100%	100% → 100%
BarChartOpDesc.scala	30/34 = 88.2% → 32/34 = 94.1%	33/34 → 34/34 = 100%
RandomUserAgent.java	23/27 = 85.2% → 26/27	—

+8 fully-covered lines and 9 branch arms closed. Worth noting the shape of the sentiment descriptor: its line-hit was already 100%, so its entire gain is partial arms flipping to hits — arms covered went 7 → 12, missed 5 → 0. That is precisely the case Codecov penalises and line-hit hides.

HashJoinProbeOpExec and OPVersion.java were in the original scope and are absent — neither survived assessment, and padding the bundle with them would have added nothing.

Verification

22 mutations. 19 non-equivalent mutants, all 19 killed, each kill re-derived from scratch with the failing test name and assertion line read out of the ScalaTest XML — the sbt log never names them.

The first draft reported no survivors. It shipped with at least seven live semantic survivors, all seven re-derived here against a hash-verified tree.

Three mutants survived and are recorded as equivalent, deliberately run to prove a point: a label-map pair reorder, an empty-cell fill-tuple reorder, and a getOutputSchemas guard-clause reorder. Each was applied specifically to demonstrate that the new assertions check containment and identity rather than incidental ordering — i.e. they are not over-fitted. The guard-clause one is a pure || over side-effect-free predicates, and is distinct from two sibling mutants that swap the variable inside a clause, both of which die.

A mechanism I had wrong, corrected here

Every brief in this campaign has said that FileScanSourceOpExecSpec aborts inside a git worktree because a worktree's .git is a file, throwing RepositoryNotFoundException in beforeAll. That is wrong. Run unfiltered, the suite runs its 7 tests successfully and then aborts at suite level with:

java.nio.file.FileSystemException: ...test_large_binary.txt: The process cannot access the file
because it is being used by another process

— a Windows file-lock in its own cleanup, because a reader is still open. The RepositoryNotFoundException in the same log comes from OPVersion.<clinit> → LogicalOp.getOperatorVersion, is caught by OPVersion's own try/catch, and has nothing to do with the abort.

The exclusion is still the right call for measurement, but the corrected mechanism carries a consequence the wrong one hid: on any unfiltered run that file is leaked into the source tree, so it must be deleted before committing or it trips the licence-header check. The earlier claim that "find confirms none exists" was true only because that suite was never allowed to run.

Module-wide branch totals are not quoted here, because IntervalJoinOpExec's covering spec uses an unseeded RNG whose branch count drifts run to run.

Deliberately not included

BarChartOpDesc keeps two partial lines (108 and 114, mb3/cb3 and mb3/cb5), so 32/34 is its ceiling under a test-only change.

Both descriptor specs carry a JSON round-trip test per house convention, and no descriptor subclass is defined in any spec — PythonCodeRawInvalidTextSpec instantiates every subclass by reflection, so a test-only subtype would break it.

The new spec carries the Apache licence header. No production file is touched, and no stray test_large_binary.txt was left behind.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7987

How was this PR tested?

sbt "WorkflowOperator/testOnly org.apache.texera.amber.operator.visualization.barChart.BarChartOpDescSpec org.apache.texera.amber.operator.huggingFace.HuggingFaceSentimentAnalysisOpDescSpec org.apache.texera.amber.operator.source.fetcher.RandomUserAgentSpec"

[info] Total number of tests run: 31
[info] Tests: succeeded 31, failed 0, canceled 0, ignored 0, pending 0

Both full-module runs were green (2365 → 2379 tests, 289 → 290 suites, zero failures), so neither report is the all-zero artifact. Test/scalafmtCheck passes.

Was this PR authored or co-authored using generative AI tooling?

Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5)

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

• Contributors with relevant context: @kz930
  You can notify them by mentioning @kz930 in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.92%. Comparing base (5de9bf9) to head (6417ff0).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7989      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     93.21%   92.92%   -0.29%     
- Complexity     4664     4678      +14     
============================================
  Files          1175     1175              
  Lines         47646    47645       -1     
  Branches       5319     5319              
============================================
- Hits          44413    44274     -139     
- Misses         1752     1858     +106     
- Partials       1481     1513      +32     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	98.95% <ø> (-0.38%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from ab1a8ba
amber	89.39% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)
config-service	86.73% <ø> (ø)
file-service	86.70% <ø> (ø)
frontend	95.03% <ø> (-0.65%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from ab1a8ba
notebook-migration-service	79.31% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	97.59% <ø> (-0.16%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from ab1a8ba
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions]

✅ No material benchmark regressions detected

🟢 0 better · 🔴 0 worse · ⚪ 15 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 5de9bf9 benchmarked on this same runner, so the delta is largely free of cross-runner hardware noise. The "7d avg" column still reflects the gh-pages dashboard. Treat <±5% as noise unless repeated.

Dashboard · Run

	config	throughput	MB/s	latency	max Δ latest / 7d
⚪	bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	612	0.374	15,832/20,968/20,968 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +54.1%
⚪	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	1,283	0.783	78,090/90,860/90,860 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -8.4%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,465	0.894	677,570/772,429/772,429 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 +19.9%

Baseline details

Latest main 5de9bf9 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	612 tuples/sec	636 tuples/sec	908.02 tuples/sec	-3.8%	-32.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.374 MB/s	0.388 MB/s	0.554 MB/s	-3.6%	-32.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	15,832 us	15,918 us	10,907 us	-0.5%	+45.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	20,968 us	20,141 us	13,604 us	+4.1%	+54.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	20,968 us	20,141 us	16,697 us	+4.1%	+25.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,283 tuples/sec	1,272 tuples/sec	1,188 tuples/sec	+0.9%	+8.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.783 MB/s	0.776 MB/s	0.725 MB/s	+0.9%	+8.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	78,090 us	78,298 us	85,003 us	-0.3%	-8.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	90,860 us	92,040 us	91,599 us	-1.3%	-0.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	90,860 us	92,040 us	99,202 us	-1.3%	-8.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,465 tuples/sec	1,480 tuples/sec	1,221 tuples/sec	-1.0%	+19.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.894 MB/s	0.903 MB/s	0.745 MB/s	-1.0%	+19.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	677,570 us	666,653 us	837,593 us	+1.6%	-19.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	772,429 us	749,788 us	881,015 us	+3.0%	-12.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	772,429 us	749,788 us	915,550 us	+3.0%	-15.6%

Raw CSV

config_idx,batch_size,schema_width,string_len,num_batches,total_ms,total_tuples,total_bytes,tuples_per_sec,mb_per_sec,lat_p50_us,lat_p95_us,lat_p99_us
0,10,10,64,20,326.72,200,128000,612,0.374,15832.46,20967.59,20967.59
1,100,10,64,20,1558.48,2000,1280000,1283,0.783,78090.21,90860.39,90860.39
2,1000,10,64,20,13650.80,20000,12800000,1465,0.894,677569.97,772429.44,772429.44