feat(workflow): persist is_form_view and add Form View toggle endpoints

[yangzhang75]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Let the backend remember, per workflow, whether it is offered as a Form View, and expose turning that on/off. Backend + DB only; no UI or form logic.

• Schema: new column workflow.is_form_view BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT false (sql/updates/43.sql, changelog.xml, texera_ddl.sql).
• Write: PUT /enable-form-view/{wid} and /disable-form-view/{wid}, guarded by write access. They update only that column — never rewriting content or bumping the modified time. A plain save preserves the stored value; a duplicate and a hub-clone both inherit it.
• Read: UnifiedResourceSchema and WorkflowSearchQueryBuilder include the flag in listing/search; WorkflowVersionResource carries it across versions; retrieveWorkflow / retrievePublicWorkflow report it.

Naming note vs the issue: the flag is is_form_view (not is_parameterized) and the endpoints are enable/disable-form-view, per the Form View rename; the migration is 43.sql because 42.sql was already taken on main.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8014. Part of the Form View parent issue #8011; builds on the feature flag from #8013.

How was this PR tested?

WorkflowResourceSpec — 9 new cases covering: enable/disable toggle, rejection without write access, survival across a plain save, inheritance by both duplicateWorkflow and cloneWorkflow, reporting by both retrieve paths, and formBinding preserved on disable. Full suite 78/78 green. Compiled and run against an ephemeral Postgres so jOOQ regenerated the is_form_view column.

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

Co-authored with Claude Code.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• Contributors with relevant context: @tanishqgandhi1908, @aglinxinyuan, @Mrudhulraj
  You can notify them by mentioning @tanishqgandhi1908, @aglinxinyuan, @Mrudhulraj in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.87500% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 94.03%. Comparing base (98588bf) to head (2d221bd).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rce/dashboard/user/workflow/WorkflowResource.scala	95.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8125      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     94.03%   94.03%   -0.01%     
- Complexity     4762     4769       +7     
============================================
  Files          1181     1181              
  Lines         47877    47899      +22     
  Branches       5324     5328       +4     
============================================
+ Hits          45020    45040      +20     
- Misses         1433     1435       +2     
  Partials       1424     1424              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 98588bf
amber	90.03% <96.87%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)
config-service	86.86% <ø> (ø)
file-service	87.91% <ø> (ø)
frontend	96.68% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 98588bf
notebook-migration-service	79.31% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	98.87% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 98588bf
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <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

🟢 9 better · 🔴 5 worse · ⚪ 1 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

CI benchmark results are noisy; treat <±5% as noise unless repeated.

Dashboard · Run

	config	throughput	MB/s	latency	max Δ latest / 7d
🔴	bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	547	0.334	18,444/24,605/24,605 us	🔴 +49.6% / 🔴 +66.7%
🟢	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	1,140	0.696	83,662/117,153/117,153 us	🟢 +26.6% / 🔴 +16.0%
🟢	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,331	0.813	738,599/835,408/835,408 us	🟢 +44.3% / 🟢 -20.6%

Baseline details

Latest main 04b213d from 2026-08-29T13:05:59.195Z

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	547 tuples/sec	705.48 tuples/sec	842.25 tuples/sec	-22.5%	-35.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.334 MB/s	0.431 MB/s	0.514 MB/s	-22.4%	-35.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	18,444 us	13,866 us	11,860 us	+33.0%	+55.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	24,605 us	16,449 us	14,764 us	+49.6%	+66.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	24,605 us	20,911 us	17,870 us	+17.7%	+37.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,140 tuples/sec	900.44 tuples/sec	1,084 tuples/sec	+26.6%	+5.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.696 MB/s	0.55 MB/s	0.662 MB/s	+26.6%	+5.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	83,662 us	111,025 us	94,616 us	-24.6%	-11.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	117,153 us	116,569 us	100,981 us	+0.5%	+16.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	117,153 us	130,664 us	108,141 us	-10.3%	+8.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,331 tuples/sec	922.9 tuples/sec	1,112 tuples/sec	+44.2%	+19.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.813 MB/s	0.563 MB/s	0.679 MB/s	+44.3%	+19.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	738,599 us	1,080,907 us	930,623 us	-31.7%	-20.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	835,408 us	1,129,687 us	974,308 us	-26.0%	-14.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	835,408 us	1,157,078 us	1,002,806 us	-27.8%	-16.7%

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
0,10,10,64,20,365.89,200,128000,547,0.334,18443.57,24605.44,24605.44
1,100,10,64,20,1754.50,2000,1280000,1140,0.696,83662.29,117152.89,117152.89
2,1000,10,64,20,15020.89,20000,12800000,1331,0.813,738598.98,835408.29,835408.29

[yangzhang75]

/request-review @mengw15