[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Consolidates and combines workflow operator test suite deduplication refactors across 4 test suites:

Suite	Module / File	Change Summary	Net Lines	Issue
CaseSensitiveAnalyzerSpec	keywordSearch	Table-drive keyword match cases via parameterized test table	-35	Closes #9210
FileScanUtilsSpec	source/scan/file	Factor default-argument file scan test helper and unify stream assertion	-58	Closes #9216
HashJoinOpSpec	hashJoin	Factor tuple join execution helper and unify tuple equality checks	-56	Closes #9221
UnnestStringOpExecSpec	unneststring	Factor unnest helper, manage executor lifecycle with try/finally, eliminate mutable state	-48	Closes #9236
Total		4 test suites refactored	-197

This PR supersedes and combines the smaller individual PRs #9211, #9217, and #9222 into #9237.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #9210
Closes #9216
Closes #9221
Closes #9236

Supersedes #9211, #9217, #9222.

How was this PR tested?

Verified with targeted sbt test suites, operator metadata tests, and linters:

sbt "WorkflowOperator/testOnly org.apache.texera.amber.operator.source.scan.file.FileScanUtilsSpec org.apache.texera.amber.operator.hashJoin.HashJoinOpSpec org.apache.texera.amber.operator.keywordSearch.CaseSensitiveAnalyzerSpec org.apache.texera.amber.operator.unneststring.UnnestStringOpExecSpec"
sbt "WorkflowOperator/testOnly org.apache.texera.amber.operator.metadata.*"
sbt "WorkflowOperator/scalafmtCheck" "WorkflowOperator/Test/scalafmtCheck" "WorkflowOperator/scalafix --check" "WorkflowOperator/Test/scalafix --check"

All 58 tests in the 4 refactored suites passed cleanly, all 229 operator metadata tests passed, and all scalafmt / scalafix checks passed.

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

Generated-by: Antigravity (Gemini 2.5 Pro)

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota. Try requesting a review at a lower effort level.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• Contributors with relevant context: @Yicong-Huang, @kz930, @sshiv012
  You can notify them by mentioning @Yicong-Huang, @kz930, @sshiv012 in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.05%. Comparing base (d79ac16) to head (1e0c559).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #9237   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     92.05%   92.05%           
  Complexity     5039     5039           
=========================================
  Files          1286     1286           
  Lines         55928    55928           
  Branches       7138     7138           
=========================================
  Hits          51483    51483           
  Misses         2693     2693           
  Partials       1752     1752           

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	77.44% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	99.16% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from d79ac16
amber	86.55% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from d79ac16
computing-unit-managing-service	64.02% <ø> (ø)
config-service	87.61% <ø> (ø)
file-service	82.29% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from d79ac16
frontend	96.48% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from d79ac16
notebook-migration-service	83.77% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	98.54% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from d79ac16
workflow-compiling-service	74.25% <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]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 4 better · 🔴 5 worse · ⚪ 6 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main d79ac16 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	567	0.346	17,775/21,678/21,678 us	🔴 +15.4% / 🔴 +50.8%
🟢	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	1,204	0.735	81,482/108,146/108,146 us	🟢 -13.5% / 🟢 -12.2%
🔴	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,454	0.888	685,254/792,815/792,815 us	🔴 +6.5% / 🟢 -25.2%

Baseline details

Latest main d79ac16 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	567 tuples/sec	628 tuples/sec	863.45 tuples/sec	-9.7%	-34.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.346 MB/s	0.383 MB/s	0.527 MB/s	-9.7%	-34.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	17,775 us	15,406 us	11,790 us	+15.4%	+50.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	21,678 us	23,679 us	14,459 us	-8.4%	+49.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	21,678 us	23,679 us	17,630 us	-8.4%	+23.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,204 tuples/sec	1,199 tuples/sec	1,138 tuples/sec	+0.4%	+5.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.735 MB/s	0.732 MB/s	0.694 MB/s	+0.4%	+5.9%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	81,482 us	79,268 us	92,850 us	+2.8%	-12.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	108,146 us	125,079 us	99,554 us	-13.5%	+8.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	108,146 us	125,079 us	114,049 us	-13.5%	-5.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,454 tuples/sec	1,444 tuples/sec	1,167 tuples/sec	+0.7%	+24.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.888 MB/s	0.882 MB/s	0.712 MB/s	+0.7%	+24.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	685,254 us	698,128 us	915,630 us	-1.8%	-25.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	792,815 us	744,739 us	958,207 us	+6.5%	-17.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	792,815 us	744,739 us	1,006,078 us	+6.5%	-21.2%

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
0,10,10,64,20,352.48,200,128000,567,0.346,17775.04,21677.69,21677.69
1,100,10,64,20,1661.68,2000,1280000,1204,0.735,81481.91,108145.81,108145.81
2,1000,10,64,20,13753.61,20000,12800000,1454,0.888,685254.23,792814.92,792814.92