test(amber): cover the DB-backed TryLockRequest branches in CollaborationResource

[mengw15]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Extends the existing CollaborationResourceSpec to cover the TryLockRequest
branches that consult the database
(amber/src/main/scala/org/apache/texera/web/resource/CollaborationResource.scala).
The prior spec (#6904) left these uncovered because they reach
WorkflowAccessResource.hasWriteAccess, which needs SqlServer. No production
code was changed.

The suite now also mixes in MockTexeraDB: for these three tests a user, a
workflow and one workflow_user_access row are seeded so
checkIsReadOnly → hasWriteAccess reads a real privilege. The session is still
driven through myOnMsg with the existing mocked javax.websocket.Session, and
outgoing events are asserted from the captured send buffer. +3 tests:

• read-only user (workflow_user_access = READ) → LockRejectedEvent +
  WorkflowAccessEvent(workflowReadonly=true), and the holder slot is set to the
  null sentinel.
• writable user (WRITE) with no current holder → WorkflowAccessEvent(readonly=false)
  • LockGrantedEvent, and the holder becomes the sender.
• writable user when a different session already holds the lock →
  WorkflowAccessEvent(readonly=false) + LockRejectedEvent, holder unchanged.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7228

How was this PR tested?

Extended unit tests, run locally against embedded Postgres (MockTexeraDB). All
pass, and the failure path was verified by breaking an assertion to confirm the
suite goes red:

sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/testOnly *CollaborationResourceSpec"
# Tests: succeeded 16, failed 0
sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/Test/scalafmtCheck"       # clean
sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/Test/scalafix --check"    # clean

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]

Pull request overview

Extends the Amber websocket collaboration endpoint test suite (CollaborationResourceSpec) to exercise the TryLockRequest branches that call into WorkflowAccessResource.hasWriteAccess by backing those paths with MockTexeraDB (embedded Postgres) and seeding the minimal user, workflow, and workflow_user_access rows needed per test. No production code changes are included.

Changes:

• Mixes MockTexeraDB into CollaborationResourceSpec and adds DB lifecycle + helper methods to seed/cleanup access rows.
• Adds a helper to register an authenticated session on a seeded workflow (lockingSession).
• Adds 3 new TryLockRequest tests covering read-only rejection, writable grant, and writable rejection when another session holds the lock.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 4 better · 🔴 2 worse · ⚪ 9 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 436b37e 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	433	0.264	22,163/29,918/29,918 us	🟢 -12.2% / 🔴 +94.4%
🟢	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	926	0.565	103,993/127,262/127,262 us	🟢 -28.4% / 🔴 +20.2%
🔴	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,080	0.659	921,017/1,035,316/1,035,316 us	🔴 +8.1% / 🟢 -5.7%

Baseline details

Latest main 436b37e from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	433 tuples/sec	454 tuples/sec	790.88 tuples/sec	-4.6%	-45.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.264 MB/s	0.277 MB/s	0.483 MB/s	-4.7%	-45.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	22,163 us	21,363 us	12,348 us	+3.7%	+79.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	29,918 us	34,076 us	15,390 us	-12.2%	+94.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	29,918 us	34,076 us	18,935 us	-12.2%	+58.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	926 tuples/sec	926 tuples/sec	1,009 tuples/sec	0.0%	-8.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.565 MB/s	0.565 MB/s	0.616 MB/s	0.0%	-8.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	103,993 us	101,884 us	99,753 us	+2.1%	+4.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	127,262 us	177,668 us	105,895 us	-28.4%	+20.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	127,262 us	177,668 us	113,263 us	-28.4%	+12.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,080 tuples/sec	1,103 tuples/sec	1,037 tuples/sec	-2.1%	+4.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.659 MB/s	0.673 MB/s	0.633 MB/s	-2.1%	+4.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	921,017 us	900,993 us	976,194 us	+2.2%	-5.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,035,316 us	957,597 us	1,016,411 us	+8.1%	+1.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,035,316 us	957,597 us	1,045,212 us	+8.1%	-0.9%

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
0,10,10,64,20,462.26,200,128000,433,0.264,22162.52,29918.24,29918.24
1,100,10,64,20,2160.30,2000,1280000,926,0.565,103992.75,127262.17,127262.17
2,1000,10,64,20,18523.30,20000,12800000,1080,0.659,921017.26,1035316.26,1035316.26

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.67%. Comparing base (436b37e) to head (2c86c40).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7254      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     82.64%   82.67%   +0.02%     
- Complexity     4080     4084       +4     
============================================
  Files          1162     1162              
  Lines         46282    46282              
  Branches       5160     5160              
============================================
+ Hits          38250    38263      +13     
+ Misses         6341     6324      -17     
- Partials       1691     1695       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea
agent-service	83.65% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea
amber	79.37% <ø> (+0.07%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	43.60% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea
config-service	65.97% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea
file-service	66.80% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea
frontend	83.55% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea
notebook-migration-service	78.89% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea
pyamber	97.36% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea
workflow-compiling-service	26.31% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 8efd3ea

*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!