fix(amber): correct WorkerSpec input port to stop flaky timeouts

[Ma77Ball]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

• WorkerSpec's input-port AssignPortRequest now passes an empty storageUris (List()) matching its empty partitionings, satisfying InputManager.addPort's size invariant, so the input port registers and the three worker tests pass deterministically.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes: #6036

How was this PR tested?

• Run sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/testOnly *WorkerSpec"; expect Tests: succeeded 3, failed 0.
• Diagnostic: grep the run log for assertion failed. Before this fix the count is 3 (the assertion fired and was swallowed every run); after it is 0. Verified locally under Java 17.

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

Co-authored with Claude Opus 4.8 in compliance with ASF

[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
  You can notify them by mentioning @Yicong-Huang in a comment.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 2 better · 🔴 3 worse · ⚪ 10 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 9f9f85b 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	410	0.25	24,626/31,626/31,626 us	🔴 +6.8% / 🔴 +113.8%
🟢	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	826	0.504	120,297/132,654/132,654 us	🟢 -5.7% / 🔴 +28.6%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	947	0.578	1,059,108/1,087,570/1,087,570 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 -11.7%

Baseline details

Latest main 9f9f85b from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	410 tuples/sec	436 tuples/sec	814.14 tuples/sec	-6.0%	-49.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.25 MB/s	0.266 MB/s	0.497 MB/s	-6.0%	-49.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	24,626 us	23,065 us	12,120 us	+6.8%	+103.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	31,626 us	31,805 us	14,792 us	-0.6%	+113.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	31,626 us	31,805 us	18,232 us	-0.6%	+73.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	826 tuples/sec	845 tuples/sec	1,050 tuples/sec	-2.2%	-21.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.504 MB/s	0.516 MB/s	0.641 MB/s	-2.3%	-21.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	120,297 us	115,071 us	96,227 us	+4.5%	+25.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	132,654 us	140,626 us	103,174 us	-5.7%	+28.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	132,654 us	140,626 us	111,033 us	-5.7%	+19.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	947 tuples/sec	940 tuples/sec	1,072 tuples/sec	+0.7%	-11.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.578 MB/s	0.574 MB/s	0.655 MB/s	+0.7%	-11.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,059,108 us	1,062,279 us	950,645 us	-0.3%	+11.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,087,570 us	1,108,116 us	991,936 us	-1.9%	+9.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,087,570 us	1,108,116 us	1,022,498 us	-1.9%	+6.4%

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
0,10,10,64,20,487.87,200,128000,410,0.250,24626.13,31626.01,31626.01
1,100,10,64,20,2420.20,2000,1280000,826,0.504,120296.91,132653.83,132653.83
2,1000,10,64,20,21111.53,20000,12800000,947,0.578,1059107.93,1087569.71,1087569.71

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 61.05%. Comparing base (9f9f85b) to head (bfa96a9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #6037   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     61.05%   61.05%           
+ Complexity     3380     3378    -2     
=========================================
  Files          1140     1140           
  Lines         44932    44932           
  Branches       4944     4944           
=========================================
+ Hits          27432    27433    +1     
+ Misses        15987    15981    -6     
- Partials       1513     1518    +5     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ecdb1a6
agent-service	44.59% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ecdb1a6
amber	66.55% <ø> (-0.03%)	⬇️
computing-unit-managing-service	0.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ecdb1a6
config-service	52.30% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ecdb1a6
file-service	63.97% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ecdb1a6
frontend	53.28% <ø> (+0.02%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from ecdb1a6
notebook-migration-service	78.94% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ecdb1a6
pyamber	91.18% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ecdb1a6
workflow-compiling-service	55.14% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ecdb1a6

*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.

[Yicong-Huang]

how come non errors can reach here? that's a bigger problem...

with your change, this "non-error" is omitted silently...

can we at least log warning when it happens?

[Ma77Ball]

Dropped the throw since it can take down the actor loop. The Error was an AssertionError from the test's mismatched addPort args; it now just logs a warning so it's not silent.

[Yicong-Huang]

The src code seems to have a bigger issue. we should not make source code less robust to satisfy test cases...

[Ma77Ball]

Reverted the re-throw. Fixed the real root cause: the test passed mismatched storageUris/partitionings, now corrected in one line. AsyncRPCServer only keeps a warning log so a swallowed Error isn't silent.

[Yicong-Huang]

@Ma77Ball as discussed, I think this is test-only issue. please revert the change on the source code. thanks

[Ma77Ball]

@Yicong-Huang I pushed the changes please continue the review when available