build: let WorkflowOperator route Python-executing tests to amber-integration

[kz930]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

The amber job runs the WorkflowOperator test suite and installs no Python packages. A test that executes an operator's generated template, rather than only py_compile-ing it, therefore fails its dependency probe and cancels — and a cancellation is neither a pass nor a failure, so the suite still reports "All tests passed" and the gap leaves no trace in the build.

This gives WorkflowOperator the split amber already has:

• Tag — IntegrationTest under common/workflow-operator/src/test. amber's cannot be reused: it lives in amber/src/test/integration, and amber depends on this module rather than the reverse.
• Filter — common/workflow-operator/build.sbt reads the same AMBER_TEST_FILTER. The amber job already sets it on the step that invokes WorkflowOperator/jacoco, so no workflow change is needed for the exclusion to take effect.
• Job — "WorkflowOperator/test" added to amber-integration, which already runs integration-only with amber/requirements.txt and amber/operator-requirements.txt installed (pandas 2.2.3, plotly 5.24.1).
• Shared logic — the env-var-to-ScalaTest-args mapping moves to project/TestFilters.scala, beside the build's other shared helpers (AddMetaInfLicenseFiles.scala, JdkOptions.scala); each module passes its own env var and tag. Its third parameter, for extra arguments on the integration side, is unused here and exists for a suite that forks a process per test and wants its pool bounded.
• First user — PythonCodeRawInvalidTextSpec gains a tagged case asserting that pandas and plotly import in the interpreter it already resolves: py_compile only parses the emitted code, while running it needs the packages it imports. Being tagged, it also exercises the routing, and it turns a missing install in amber-integration into a failure rather than the silent cancellation above. Elsewhere a bare interpreter is a local-setup fact, so it cancels instead.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Fixes #7186. Found while reviewing #7149, whose runtime test is the case cancelling today; tagging it is a one-line follow-up once this is in.

How was this PR tested?

• amber is unchanged by the extraction: show WorkflowExecutionService/Test/testOptions under all three env values gives arguments byte-identical to its previous inline code — -l <tag>, -n <tag>, nothing when unset. WorkflowOperator was checked the same way and yields its own tag in those positions.
• The new case, run as WorkflowOperator/testOnly *PythonCodeRawInvalidTextSpec: passes under integration-only (1 test selected); is excluded under skip-integration while the spec's two existing tests still run; and, pointed at a bare interpreter, fails under integration-only and cancels with no filter set.
• sbt scalafmtCheckAll is clean, and WorkflowOperator's Compile and Test scalafix checks pass.

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Opus 5)

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• Contributors with relevant context: @aglinxinyuan, @carloea2
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan, @carloea2 in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 80.93%. Comparing base (348fa88) to head (5fa413e).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7207      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     80.58%   80.93%   +0.35%     
- Complexity     3890     3959      +69     
============================================
  Files          1162     1162              
  Lines         46264    46264              
  Branches       5153     5153              
============================================
+ Hits          37280    37442     +162     
+ Misses         7319     7148     -171     
- Partials       1665     1674       +9     

Flag	Coverage Δ
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	77.42% <ø> (ø)
amber	76.55% <ø> (+0.95%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	20.49% <ø> (ø)
config-service	65.97% <ø> (ø)
file-service	66.80% <ø> (ø)
frontend	83.22% <ø> (ø)
notebook-migration-service	78.89% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	97.36% <ø> (ø)
workflow-compiling-service	26.31% <ø> (ø)

☔ 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

🟢 2 better · 🔴 4 worse · ⚪ 9 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 0107183 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	363	0.222	27,737/33,072/33,072 us	🔴 +16.0% / 🔴 +118.3%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	798	0.487	127,312/136,431/136,431 us	🟢 -7.7% / 🔴 +23.2%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	901	0.55	1,115,590/1,152,692/1,152,692 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +9.7%

Baseline details

Latest main 0107183 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	363 tuples/sec	412 tuples/sec	765.25 tuples/sec	-11.9%	-52.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.222 MB/s	0.252 MB/s	0.467 MB/s	-11.9%	-52.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	27,737 us	23,907 us	12,703 us	+16.0%	+118.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	33,072 us	34,114 us	16,199 us	-3.1%	+104.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	33,072 us	34,114 us	19,557 us	-3.1%	+69.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	798 tuples/sec	810 tuples/sec	965.22 tuples/sec	-1.5%	-17.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.487 MB/s	0.495 MB/s	0.589 MB/s	-1.6%	-17.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	127,312 us	121,176 us	103,830 us	+5.1%	+22.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	136,431 us	147,830 us	110,778 us	-7.7%	+23.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	136,431 us	147,830 us	118,713 us	-7.7%	+14.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	901 tuples/sec	902 tuples/sec	992.33 tuples/sec	-0.1%	-9.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.55 MB/s	0.55 MB/s	0.606 MB/s	0.0%	-9.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,115,590 us	1,109,354 us	1,016,959 us	+0.6%	+9.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,152,692 us	1,146,886 us	1,062,501 us	+0.5%	+8.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,152,692 us	1,146,886 us	1,082,611 us	+0.5%	+6.5%

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
0,10,10,64,20,550.40,200,128000,363,0.222,27736.67,33071.72,33071.72
1,100,10,64,20,2506.83,2000,1280000,798,0.487,127311.98,136431.03,136431.03
2,1000,10,64,20,22185.98,20000,12800000,901,0.550,1115590.41,1152692.11,1152692.11