test(amber): add unit test coverage for UserQuotaResource

[mengw15]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Adds UserQuotaResourceSpec for UserQuotaResource (previously ~0% coverage,
no spec). The suite runs against embedded Postgres via MockTexeraDB and seeds
users / workflows / versions / executions / datasets through the generated DAOs.

13 tests, each starting from a clean slate (so they are order-independent):

• getUserCreatedWorkflow — empty list when the user owns no workflows; the owned workflows with their id / name / creation time when WORKFLOW_OF_USER is seeded.
• getUserAccessedWorkflow — empty list with no grants; the accessible workflow ids from WORKFLOW_USER_ACCESS.
• getUserQuotaSize — empty array with no executions; the assembled per-execution resultBytes / runTimeStatsBytes / logBytes (seeded across WORKFLOW_EXECUTIONS.RUNTIME_STATS_SIZE, OPERATOR_PORT_EXECUTIONS.RESULT_SIZE, and OPERATOR_EXECUTIONS.CONSOLE_MESSAGES_SIZE).
• The JAX-RS endpoints (getCreatedWorkflow, getAccessedWorkflow, getUserQuota, getCreatedDatasets) via a new SessionUser, covering the thin delegation wrappers; getCreatedDatasets covers the empty case and the created-datasets case (size is deterministically 0 — the size calculation is disabled in the current dataset implementation).
• deleteExecutionCollection and the deleteCollection endpoint — assert the execution row is removed from WORKFLOW_EXECUTIONS.

No production code was changed.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7162

How was this PR tested?

New unit tests, run locally against embedded Postgres:

sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/testOnly org.apache.texera.web.resource.dashboard.user.quota.UserQuotaResourceSpec"
# Tests: succeeded 13, failed 0
sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/Test/scalafmtCheck" "WorkflowExecutionService/Test/scalafix --check"   # clean

The failure path was verified by deliberately breaking an assertion and
confirming the suite goes red. To keep the suite deterministic, the
creationTime assertion compares against the DB round-tripped value rather than
the in-memory timestamp (Postgres rounds the stored value, so an exact
in-memory comparison would be flaky).

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]

🟢 Ready to approve

The PR adds isolated embedded-Postgres tests without modifying production code and aligns with the linked issue’s requested coverage.

This review doesn't count toward merge requirements. Sign up for the private preview to control whether Copilot approvals count.

Pull request overview

Adds a new ScalaTest spec to cover UserQuotaResource in the Amber module, exercising both the underlying jOOQ-backed query helpers and the thin JAX-RS endpoint wrappers against an embedded Postgres via MockTexeraDB.

Changes:

• Add UserQuotaResourceSpec with empty + populated cases for created/accessed workflows, quota storage sizing, and created datasets.
• Add coverage for deletion behavior via deleteExecutionCollection and the deleteCollection endpoint, asserting execution rows are removed.

File summaries

File	Description
amber/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/web/resource/dashboard/user/quota/UserQuotaResourceSpec.scala	New embedded-Postgres-backed unit tests covering UserQuotaResource query helpers and endpoints, including deletion behavior.

Review details

• Files reviewed: 1/1 changed files
• Comments generated: 0
• Review effort level: Lite

We're testing this review assessment. Please use 👍 or 👎 to tell us if it's correct.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 5 worse · ⚪ 10 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 45b7b20 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	368	0.225	26,307/36,660/36,660 us	🔴 -10.0% / 🔴 +132.2%
⚪	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	951	0.581	104,030/126,294/126,294 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +14.5%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,103	0.673	913,699/947,950/947,950 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -11.8%

Baseline details

Latest main 45b7b20 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	368 tuples/sec	409 tuples/sec	771.62 tuples/sec	-10.0%	-52.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.225 MB/s	0.25 MB/s	0.471 MB/s	-10.0%	-52.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	26,307 us	23,948 us	12,626 us	+9.8%	+108.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	36,660 us	34,431 us	15,786 us	+6.5%	+132.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	36,660 us	34,431 us	19,344 us	+6.5%	+89.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	951 tuples/sec	934 tuples/sec	971.56 tuples/sec	+1.8%	-2.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.581 MB/s	0.57 MB/s	0.593 MB/s	+1.9%	-2.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	104,030 us	105,644 us	103,463 us	-1.5%	+0.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	126,294 us	128,691 us	110,296 us	-1.9%	+14.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	126,294 us	128,691 us	118,690 us	-1.9%	+6.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,103 tuples/sec	1,115 tuples/sec	1,001 tuples/sec	-1.1%	+10.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.673 MB/s	0.681 MB/s	0.611 MB/s	-1.2%	+10.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	913,699 us	890,382 us	1,008,988 us	+2.6%	-9.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	947,950 us	962,202 us	1,055,260 us	-1.5%	-10.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	947,950 us	962,202 us	1,074,689 us	-1.5%	-11.8%

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
0,10,10,64,20,542.92,200,128000,368,0.225,26306.74,36659.72,36659.72
1,100,10,64,20,2102.22,2000,1280000,951,0.581,104030.47,126294.22,126294.22
2,1000,10,64,20,18140.33,20000,12800000,1103,0.673,913698.72,947950.38,947950.38

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.76%. Comparing base (45b7b20) to head (ec03999).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7168      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     79.62%   79.76%   +0.14%     
- Complexity     3836     3840       +4     
============================================
  Files          1160     1160              
  Lines         46188    46188              
  Branches       5145     5145              
============================================
+ Hits          36777    36843      +66     
+ Misses         7778     7709      -69     
- Partials       1633     1636       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20
agent-service	77.42% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20
amber	73.47% <ø> (+0.38%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	20.49% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20
config-service	65.97% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20
file-service	66.80% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20
frontend	83.16% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20
notebook-migration-service	78.89% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20
pyamber	97.36% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20
workflow-compiling-service	26.31% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 45b7b20

*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.

[aglinxinyuan]

LGTM!