test(workflow-operator): add unit test coverage for visualization option enums

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Pin behavior of seven previously-untested visualization option enums in common/workflow-operator. No production-code changes.

Spec	Source enum	Tests
RadarPlotLinePatternSpec	RadarPlotLinePattern	2
LineModeSpec	LineMode	4
HierarchyChartTypeSpec	HierarchyChartType	2
NormalizationTypeSpec	NormalizationType	2
RangeSliderHandleDuplicateFunctionSpec	RangeSliderHandleDuplicateFunction	2
ContourPlotColoringFunctionSpec	ContourPlotColoringFunction	2
BoxViolinPlotQuartileFunctionSpec	BoxViolinPlotQuartileFunction	2

Behavior pinned

Surface	Contract
wire mapping	each constant's @JsonValue string + constant counts
LineMode extras	getModeInPlotly (lines/markers/lines+markers); @JsonCreator fromString case-insensitive + unknown-value rejection
Jackson round-trip	serialize + deserialize back to the constant

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Part of the ongoing workflow-operator unit-test coverage effort.

How was this PR tested?

• sbt "WorkflowOperator/testOnly *RadarPlotLinePatternSpec *LineModeSpec *HierarchyChartTypeSpec *NormalizationTypeSpec *RangeSliderHandleDuplicateFunctionSpec *ContourPlotColoringFunctionSpec *BoxViolinPlotQuartileFunctionSpec" — 16 tests, all green
• sbt "WorkflowOperator/Test/scalafmtCheck" and sbt "WorkflowOperator/scalafixAll --check" — clean
• CI to confirm

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

This PR strengthens the common/workflow-operator test suite by adding unit tests that “pin” the JSON wire-format and Jackson round-trip behavior for several visualization option enums used by operators and UI/property-window configuration.

Changes:

• Added ScalaTest specs to verify each enum constant’s @JsonValue mapping and expected constant count.
• Added Jackson serialization/deserialization round-trip tests for each enum using the shared JSONUtils.objectMapper.
• Added targeted tests for LineMode’s extra behaviors (getModeInPlotly and case-insensitive @JsonCreator fromString, including unknown-value rejection).

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 7 out of 7 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
common/workflow-operator/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/amber/operator/visualization/rangeSlider/RangeSliderHandleDuplicateFunctionSpec.scala	Pins wire values, enum size, and Jackson round-trip for the range slider duplicate-function enum.
common/workflow-operator/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/amber/operator/visualization/radarPlot/RadarPlotLinePatternSpec.scala	Pins wire values, enum size, and Jackson round-trip for radar plot line patterns.
common/workflow-operator/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/amber/operator/visualization/lineChart/LineModeSpec.scala	Adds coverage for LineMode wire mapping + Plotly mode translation + fromString behavior + Jackson round-trip.
common/workflow-operator/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/amber/operator/visualization/histogram2d/NormalizationTypeSpec.scala	Pins wire values, enum size, and Jackson round-trip for histogram2d normalization types.
common/workflow-operator/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/amber/operator/visualization/hierarchychart/HierarchyChartTypeSpec.scala	Pins wire values, enum size, and Jackson round-trip for hierarchy chart type selection.
common/workflow-operator/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/amber/operator/visualization/contourPlot/ContourPlotColoringFunctionSpec.scala	Pins wire values, enum size, and Jackson round-trip for contour plot coloring functions.
common/workflow-operator/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/amber/operator/visualization/boxViolinPlot/BoxViolinPlotQuartileFunctionSpec.scala	Pins wire values, enum size, and Jackson round-trip for box/violin quartile computation modes.

---

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

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 56.93%. Comparing base (434bcae) to head (fafe3e3).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #6043      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     56.93%   56.93%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     3026     3025       -1     
============================================
  Files          1129     1129              
  Lines         43794    43794              
  Branches       4743     4743              
============================================
- Hits          24936    24934       -2     
- Misses        17384    17385       +1     
- Partials       1474     1475       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	44.59% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 434bcae
amber	58.75% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
computing-unit-managing-service	0.00% <ø> (ø)
config-service	52.30% <ø> (ø)
file-service	62.81% <ø> (ø)
frontend	50.12% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 434bcae
notebook-migration-service	78.57% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	90.20% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 434bcae
python	90.76% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 434bcae
workflow-compiling-service	55.14% <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 · 🔴 7 worse · ⚪ 8 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 434bcae 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	22,918/35,195/35,195 us	🔴 +19.1% / 🔴 +133.5%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	944	0.576	104,876/134,307/134,307 us	🔴 +5.4% / 🔴 +24.8%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,090	0.665	921,644/955,630/955,630 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -9.7%

Baseline details

Latest main 434bcae from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	410 tuples/sec	449 tuples/sec	777.62 tuples/sec	-8.7%	-47.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.25 MB/s	0.274 MB/s	0.475 MB/s	-8.8%	-47.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	22,918 us	21,707 us	12,612 us	+5.6%	+81.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	35,195 us	29,556 us	15,070 us	+19.1%	+133.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	35,195 us	29,556 us	18,360 us	+19.1%	+91.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	944 tuples/sec	952 tuples/sec	988.31 tuples/sec	-0.8%	-4.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.576 MB/s	0.581 MB/s	0.603 MB/s	-0.9%	-4.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	104,876 us	103,340 us	101,066 us	+1.5%	+3.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	134,307 us	127,372 us	107,594 us	+5.4%	+24.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	134,307 us	127,372 us	115,830 us	+5.4%	+16.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,090 tuples/sec	1,102 tuples/sec	1,019 tuples/sec	-1.1%	+6.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.665 MB/s	0.673 MB/s	0.622 MB/s	-1.2%	+6.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	921,644 us	908,151 us	986,982 us	+1.5%	-6.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	955,630 us	956,512 us	1,028,491 us	-0.1%	-7.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	955,630 us	956,512 us	1,058,493 us	-0.1%	-9.7%

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
0,10,10,64,20,487.74,200,128000,410,0.250,22918.15,35194.86,35194.86
1,100,10,64,20,2117.71,2000,1280000,944,0.576,104875.58,134307.22,134307.22
2,1000,10,64,20,18346.69,20000,12800000,1090,0.665,921643.60,955629.68,955629.68

[mengw15]

LGTM

[Yicong-Huang]

does this PR improve test coverage? @aglinxinyuan. Seems that 300 lines of new tests add coverage on only 1 src line. Let's try to fill up the coverage on the untested code path first.