[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

In common/workflow-operator/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/amber/operator/source/scan/file/FileScanUtilsSpec.scala:

1. Add a scan(...) test helper providing canonical default arguments (displayFileName = "d", attributeType = FileAttributeType.STRING, fileEncoding = FileDecodingMethod.UTF_8, extract = false, outputFileName = false, fileScanOffset = None, fileScanLimit = None) around FileScanUtils.createTuplesFromFile.
2. Deduplicate 11 createTuplesFromFile test cases by adopting the scan(...) helper instead of repeating lengthy 8-argument parameter lists.
3. Add a memoryFailureMessage(...) test helper to encapsulate the safeToByteArray error interception across 5 memory guard test cases.

All 18 test cases, docstrings, assertions, and edge-case verifications are preserved untouched.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #9216

How was this PR tested?

Verified with sbt unit tests, operator metadata tests, and linters:

sbt "WorkflowOperator/testOnly org.apache.texera.amber.operator.source.scan.file.FileScanUtilsSpec"
sbt "WorkflowOperator/testOnly org.apache.texera.amber.operator.metadata.*"
sbt "WorkflowOperator/scalafmtCheck" "WorkflowOperator/Test/scalafmtCheck" "WorkflowOperator/scalafix --check" "WorkflowOperator/Test/scalafix --check"

All 18 tests in FileScanUtilsSpec passed, 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.

[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.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.04%. Comparing base (f673554) to head (e383366).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #9217      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     92.05%   92.04%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     5041     5038       -3     
============================================
  Files          1286     1286              
  Lines         55911    55911              
  Branches       7137     7137              
============================================
- Hits          51469    51465       -4     
- Misses         2692     2693       +1     
- Partials       1750     1753       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	77.44% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	99.16% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f673554
amber	86.55% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
computing-unit-managing-service	64.02% <ø> (ø)
config-service	87.61% <ø> (ø)
file-service	82.29% <ø> (ø)
frontend	96.48% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f673554
notebook-migration-service	83.77% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	98.54% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f673554
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

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

Compared against main f673554 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	356	0.217	27,466/37,625/37,625 us	🔴 +21.0% / 🔴 +168.1%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	783	0.478	126,294/152,086/152,086 us	🔴 +10.0% / 🔴 +58.0%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	950	0.58	1,047,213/1,145,714/1,145,714 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +24.6%

Baseline details

Latest main f673554 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	356 tuples/sec	420 tuples/sec	905.73 tuples/sec	-15.2%	-60.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.217 MB/s	0.257 MB/s	0.553 MB/s	-15.6%	-60.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	27,466 us	22,691 us	11,331 us	+21.0%	+142.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	37,625 us	33,374 us	14,032 us	+12.7%	+168.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	37,625 us	33,374 us	17,338 us	+12.7%	+117.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	783 tuples/sec	853 tuples/sec	1,205 tuples/sec	-8.2%	-35.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.478 MB/s	0.521 MB/s	0.735 MB/s	-8.3%	-35.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	126,294 us	114,832 us	89,237 us	+10.0%	+41.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	152,086 us	144,599 us	96,280 us	+5.2%	+58.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	152,086 us	144,599 us	111,344 us	+5.2%	+36.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	950 tuples/sec	959 tuples/sec	1,239 tuples/sec	-0.9%	-23.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.58 MB/s	0.585 MB/s	0.756 MB/s	-0.9%	-23.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,047,213 us	1,041,252 us	877,826 us	+0.6%	+19.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,145,714 us	1,101,149 us	919,412 us	+4.0%	+24.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,145,714 us	1,101,149 us	963,000 us	+4.0%	+19.0%

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
0,10,10,64,20,562.28,200,128000,356,0.217,27465.68,37624.83,37624.83
1,100,10,64,20,2555.31,2000,1280000,783,0.478,126293.52,152086.45,152086.45
2,1000,10,64,20,21048.93,20000,12800000,950,0.580,1047212.81,1145713.68,1145713.68