chore(amber): remove the unused EditingTimeCompilationRequest

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Deletes EditingTimeCompilationRequest, a websocket request the frontend no longer sends and the backend no longer handles. Pure deletion, no behaviour change: −39 lines across the case class, its @JsonSubTypes registration, the protocol spec's entries, and the frontend type-map entry.

History

Introduced by	#2195 (2023-11-09) — "Enhance frontend error reporting", which had the editor send the logical plan over the websocket to collect static errors
Usage removed by	#3178 (2024-12-29) — "Remove cache checker in logical plan" deleted the handler that took it, when compilation moved to the HTTP workflow-compiling-service

Dead for about a year and a half, with no sender and no handler since.

The frontend documents the switch itself, in workflow-compiling.service.ts:

receive static errors (previously done by sending EditingTimeCompilationRequest and saving in the ExecutionStateInfo)

Reviewer note: that comment is kept — it is accurate history explaining why the service works the way it does, and it is the only remaining mention of the name. The shared emptyPlanFields test fixture also stays: WorkflowExecuteRequest's logicalPlan still uses it. Its doc comment and the spec's list of registered type ids are updated to match.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8394

How was this PR tested?

Existing tests only — this PR adds none; it narrows the protocol spec to the types that remain registered.

Locally, from the repo root with Java 17:

• sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/Test/compile" — success.
• sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/testOnly *TexeraWebSocketRequestSpec" — 12 tests, all pass.
• sbt scalafmtCheckAll "scalafixAll --check" — clean.

From frontend/:

• yarn --cwd frontend format:ci — clean (this PR touches a .ts file).

Verification, re-runnable by a reviewer:

git grep -n EditingTimeCompilationRequest   # only the historical comment remains

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Opus 5)

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• Contributors with relevant context: @Ma77Ball
  You can notify them by mentioning @Ma77Ball in a comment.

[Copilot]

🟢 Approval recommended

The change is a consistent, repo-wide removal of an unreferenced websocket request type (frontend typing, backend registry, and contract tests) with no remaining usages found.

Pull request overview

Removes the deprecated EditingTimeCompilationRequest websocket request type from Amber’s polymorphic request registry and the frontend websocket request type map, tightening the documented wire contract to only the still-supported request types.

Changes:

• Deleted the backend EditingTimeCompilationRequest case class and removed its @JsonSubTypes registration.
• Updated the websocket request contract spec (TexeraWebSocketRequestSpec) to drop the removed type ID and refresh related comments/fixtures.
• Removed the corresponding key from the frontend TexeraWebsocketRequestTypeMap.

File summaries

File	Description
frontend/src/app/workspace/types/workflow-websocket.interface.ts	Removes EditingTimeCompilationRequest from the frontend request type map so it’s no longer a typed sendable request.
amber/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/web/model/websocket/request/TexeraWebSocketRequestSpec.scala	Updates the pinned websocket request wire-contract tests to exclude the removed request type ID.
amber/src/main/scala/org/apache/texera/web/model/websocket/request/TexeraWebSocketRequest.scala	Removes EditingTimeCompilationRequest from the Jackson @JsonSubTypes registry of accepted websocket requests.
amber/src/main/scala/org/apache/texera/web/model/websocket/request/EditingTimeCompilationRequest.scala	Deletes the unused websocket request model class.

Review details

• Files reviewed: 4/4 changed files
• Comments generated: 0
• Review effort level: Lite

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.02%. Comparing base (1cbe857) to head (d728dd5).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8397      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     94.03%   94.02%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     4821     4818       -3     
============================================
  Files          1204     1203       -1     
  Lines         48991    48984       -7     
  Branches       5956     5956              
============================================
- Hits          46067    46059       -8     
+ Misses         1458     1457       -1     
- Partials       1466     1468       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1cbe857
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1cbe857
amber	89.91% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1cbe857
config-service	87.12% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1cbe857
file-service	87.91% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1cbe857
frontend	96.79% <ø> (ø)
notebook-migration-service	83.57% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1cbe857
pyamber	98.47% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1cbe857
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1cbe857

*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

🟢 2 better · 🔴 7 worse · ⚪ 6 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 1cbe857 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	384	0.234	25,003/33,618/33,618 us	🔴 +21.8% / 🔴 +110.4%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	790	0.482	122,837/174,472/174,472 us	🔴 +22.1% / 🔴 +59.7%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	918	0.56	1,093,563/1,142,427/1,142,427 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +9.6%

Baseline details

Latest main 1cbe857 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	384 tuples/sec	431 tuples/sec	755.36 tuples/sec	-10.9%	-49.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.234 MB/s	0.263 MB/s	0.461 MB/s	-11.0%	-49.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	25,003 us	20,524 us	12,938 us	+21.8%	+93.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	33,618 us	36,938 us	15,980 us	-9.0%	+110.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	33,618 us	36,938 us	19,233 us	-9.0%	+74.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	790 tuples/sec	846 tuples/sec	976.3 tuples/sec	-6.6%	-19.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.482 MB/s	0.516 MB/s	0.596 MB/s	-6.6%	-19.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	122,837 us	117,952 us	102,340 us	+4.1%	+20.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	174,472 us	142,921 us	109,262 us	+22.1%	+59.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	174,472 us	142,921 us	118,827 us	+22.1%	+46.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	918 tuples/sec	922 tuples/sec	1,006 tuples/sec	-0.4%	-8.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.56 MB/s	0.562 MB/s	0.614 MB/s	-0.4%	-8.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,093,563 us	1,074,521 us	999,855 us	+1.8%	+9.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,142,427 us	1,141,219 us	1,042,833 us	+0.1%	+9.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,142,427 us	1,141,219 us	1,070,722 us	+0.1%	+6.7%

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
0,10,10,64,20,520.95,200,128000,384,0.234,25003.44,33617.54,33617.54
1,100,10,64,20,2531.83,2000,1280000,790,0.482,122837.11,174472.07,174472.07
2,1000,10,64,20,21789.90,20000,12800000,918,0.560,1093563.20,1142426.53,1142426.53