test(amber): cover RetrieveWorkflowStateHandler state-propagation dispatch

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Adds a unit test for RetrieveWorkflowStateHandler.retrieveWorkflowState. Using a real CoordinatorProcessor with a capturing output handler and a CoordinatorAsyncRPCHandlerInitializer, it invokes the handler and asserts the dispatched PropagateEmbeddedControlMessage request — covering target-operator collection, request construction, dispatch, and response-transform registration, for both an empty and a populated physical plan.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #6307.

How was this PR tested?

Added a new RetrieveWorkflowStateHandlerSpec (2 cases), a plain-JVM AnyFlatSpec — no ActorSystem, DB, Python, or storage. Verified locally on Java 17 (WorkflowExecutionService/testOnly, plus scalafixAll --check clean). Test-only change — no production code is modified.

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 4.8 [1M context])

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• No candidates found from git blame history.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds a new Amber unit test to exercise RetrieveWorkflowStateHandler.retrieveWorkflowState by building a real CoordinatorProcessor + CoordinatorAsyncRPCHandlerInitializer, invoking the handler, and asserting the dispatched PropagateEmbeddedControlMessageRequest for both an empty and a populated physical plan.

Changes:

• Introduce RetrieveWorkflowStateHandlerSpec with a lightweight coordinator fixture that captures outbound WorkflowFIFOMessages.
• Add assertions covering dispatched control-invocation shape (method name, request fields) for an empty plan.
• Add assertions that a populated plan targets all operators.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[github-actions]

✅ No material benchmark regressions detected

🟢 2 better · 🔴 0 worse · ⚪ 13 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 1b42558 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	374	0.228	25,934/32,070/32,070 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +112.2%
🟢	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	788	0.481	125,157/150,325/150,325 us	🟢 -9.6% / 🔴 +40.4%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	890	0.543	1,118,214/1,262,756/1,262,756 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +22.7%

Baseline details

Latest main 1b42558 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	374 tuples/sec	374 tuples/sec	779.42 tuples/sec	0.0%	-52.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.228 MB/s	0.228 MB/s	0.476 MB/s	0.0%	-52.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	25,934 us	26,318 us	12,550 us	-1.5%	+106.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	32,070 us	33,142 us	15,115 us	-3.2%	+112.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	32,070 us	33,142 us	18,652 us	-3.2%	+71.9%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	788 tuples/sec	787 tuples/sec	1,000 tuples/sec	+0.1%	-21.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.481 MB/s	0.48 MB/s	0.61 MB/s	+0.2%	-21.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	125,157 us	122,974 us	99,872 us	+1.8%	+25.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	150,325 us	166,364 us	107,073 us	-9.6%	+40.4%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	150,325 us	166,364 us	114,377 us	-9.6%	+31.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	890 tuples/sec	903 tuples/sec	1,020 tuples/sec	-1.4%	-12.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.543 MB/s	0.551 MB/s	0.622 MB/s	-1.5%	-12.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,118,214 us	1,104,054 us	987,499 us	+1.3%	+13.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,262,756 us	1,244,773 us	1,028,784 us	+1.4%	+22.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,262,756 us	1,244,773 us	1,057,136 us	+1.4%	+19.5%

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
0,10,10,64,20,535.44,200,128000,374,0.228,25933.91,32070.39,32070.39
1,100,10,64,20,2536.96,2000,1280000,788,0.481,125157.12,150325.46,150325.46
2,1000,10,64,20,22478.88,20000,12800000,890,0.543,1118214.39,1262755.77,1262755.77

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 60.91%. Comparing base (737763b) to head (9cde8cd).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #6310      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     60.88%   60.91%   +0.03%     
- Complexity     3372     3373       +1     
============================================
  Files          1136     1136              
  Lines         44275    44275              
  Branches       4853     4853              
============================================
+ Hits          26958    26972      +14     
+ Misses        15839    15825      -14     
  Partials       1478     1478              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff
agent-service	44.59% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff
amber	66.46% <ø> (+0.08%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	0.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff
config-service	52.30% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff
file-service	63.97% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff
frontend	52.75% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff
notebook-migration-service	78.94% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff
pyamber	91.18% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff
workflow-compiling-service	55.14% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from fe173ff

*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.

[mengw15]

LGTM