test(pyamber): close the schema, table, proxy and network-sender gaps

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Seven pyamber files, five existing specs extended and two new ones added. +15 fully-covered lines; six of the seven files reach 100%.

File	Missed before	After
handlers/control/open_executor_handler.py	2 (67%)	0 — 100%
models/schema/schema.py	3 (94%)	0 — 100%
models/schema/attribute_type.py	2 (96%)	0 — 100%
models/table.py	2 (95%)	0 — 100%
proxy/proxy_client.py	2 (94%)	0 — 100%
runnables/network_sender.py	2 (96%)	0 — 100%
storage/iceberg/iceberg_utils.py	4 local / 2 CI	2 left

No file here is worth a PR alone — each carries two or three lines. The bundle total is the point, and it is stated that way rather than dressed up per file.

iceberg_utils.py closes lines 239 and 275; its remaining 302–303 are already green in CI and worth zero. The local figure of 4 missed is a local-environment artefact, which is why the honest CI-equivalent gain is +15 and not +17.

Tests across the seven files go 37 → 89.

A measurement trap worth recording

This machine cannot run the Iceberg-backed tests — the postgres texera role cannot read iceberg_tables — so a raw local coverage run under-reports. An earlier assessment of one of these files measured 12 missed lines locally where Codecov showed 2, wrong by 6×. Every target here was sized from Codecov and the local numbers were used only for the delta, never for the ceiling.

Dead production code found, and deliberately not pinned

attribute_type.py:96-97 normalises a trailing Z before calling datetime.fromisoformat. Deleting the whole block leaves the suite byte-identical. That is not a coverage gap — fromisoformat has accepted Z since Python 3.11, and the CI matrix is 3.11/3.12/3.13, so the block is dead on every interpreter the project runs. A 10-case differential probe confirmed it.

No test was written to pin it. The test that had been named after that branch was renamed and annotated, so nothing in the suite claims to constrain a branch that cannot be reached.

Verification

27 mutations, 26 killed, 1 equivalent — the equivalent one being the dead block above. Each was applied one at a time against a tree verified hash-equal to a snapshot, reverted from that snapshot rather than from git.

Two adversarial reviewers returned nine findings against the first draft; all repaired, adding six further tests.

Measured with --cov=src/main/python under the exact marker filter CI uses (-m "not integration"), no name filter, identical on both sides. The before-state restored each tracked spec by exact single file path via git show HEAD:<path> and moved the two new specs aside; all seven were then restored from a scratch snapshot and md5-verified.

Full pyamber suite: 5 failed, 1269 passed, 7 errors, with the FAILED/ERROR set identical by identity to main's 12 entries — no regression. ruff check and ruff format --check pass on CI's exact scope (src/main/python src/test/python). Both new spec files carry the Apache licence header.

No production file is touched; git diff -- 'amber/src/main/*' is empty.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8065

How was this PR tested?

cd amber && python -m pytest -m "not integration" -q src/test/python/core/models src/test/python/core/proxy src/test/python/core/runnables/test_network_sender.py src/test/python/core/architecture/handlers/control/test_open_executor_handler.py src/test/python/core/storage/iceberg/test_iceberg_utils_catalog.py

89 passed, 1 warning in 1.73s

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5)

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• Contributors with relevant context: @kunwp1, @Yicong-Huang
  You can notify them by mentioning @kunwp1, @Yicong-Huang in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.54%. Comparing base (bdc6d2a) to head (cc41d24).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8067      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     93.51%   93.54%   +0.03%     
  Complexity     4709     4709              
============================================
  Files          1181     1181              
  Lines         47809    47809              
  Branches       5327     5327              
============================================
+ Hits          44708    44725      +17     
+ Misses         1663     1646      -17     
  Partials       1438     1438              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a
amber	89.59% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a
config-service	86.73% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a
file-service	87.89% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a
frontend	95.92% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a
notebook-migration-service	79.31% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a
pyamber	98.87% <ø> (+0.36%)	⬆️
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bdc6d2a

*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

🟢 4 better · 🔴 6 worse · ⚪ 5 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main bdc6d2a 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	538	0.328	18,650/22,178/22,178 us	🔴 +23.2% / 🔴 +66.9%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	1,171	0.715	85,477/101,469/101,469 us	🟢 -20.8% / 🔴 +6.7%
🔴	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,401	0.855	712,629/797,783/797,783 us	🔴 +8.4% / 🟢 -18.6%

Baseline details

Latest main bdc6d2a from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	538 tuples/sec	570 tuples/sec	893.99 tuples/sec	-5.6%	-39.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.328 MB/s	0.348 MB/s	0.546 MB/s	-5.7%	-39.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	18,650 us	15,132 us	11,176 us	+23.2%	+66.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	22,178 us	28,561 us	14,009 us	-22.3%	+58.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	22,178 us	28,561 us	16,898 us	-22.3%	+31.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,171 tuples/sec	1,127 tuples/sec	1,157 tuples/sec	+3.9%	+1.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.715 MB/s	0.688 MB/s	0.706 MB/s	+3.9%	+1.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	85,477 us	80,485 us	88,763 us	+6.2%	-3.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	101,469 us	128,196 us	95,096 us	-20.8%	+6.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	101,469 us	128,196 us	102,854 us	-20.8%	-1.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,401 tuples/sec	1,443 tuples/sec	1,187 tuples/sec	-2.9%	+18.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.855 MB/s	0.881 MB/s	0.724 MB/s	-3.0%	+18.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	712,629 us	691,280 us	874,968 us	+3.1%	-18.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	797,783 us	735,719 us	917,815 us	+8.4%	-13.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	797,783 us	735,719 us	949,868 us	+8.4%	-16.0%

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
0,10,10,64,20,371.77,200,128000,538,0.328,18650.25,22178.00,22178.00
1,100,10,64,20,1707.48,2000,1280000,1171,0.715,85476.53,101468.94,101468.94
2,1000,10,64,20,14276.97,20000,12800000,1401,0.855,712629.22,797782.97,797782.97