refactor(services): use the shared request-logging filter and SQL-state constant

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Two places where a shared helper already existed but a local copy or literal was used instead. 9 insertions, 27 deletions.

1. WorkflowCompilingService now calls the shared RequestLoggingFilter. It was the only Dropwizard-4 service still inlining its own anonymous request-logging filter; the other five (access-control, computing-unit-managing, config, file, notebook-migration) all call RequestLoggingFilter.register(environment.getApplicationContext) at exactly this point.

The two implementations were compared line by line before swapping, not assumed equivalent. Normalising fully-qualified prefixes and the logger's local name, every observable matches: logger name "org.eclipse.jetty.server.RequestLog", the isInfoEnabled guard, the same access-log format string, url pattern "/*", and EnumSet.allOf(classOf[DispatcherType]). The inline copy also sat immediately after RoleAnnotationEnforcer.enforce, which is exactly where the siblings place the register call — so this is a body-only replacement.

2. Four sites now use SqlStates.UNIQUE_VIOLATION instead of the literal "23505".

Site	Was
PveResource.scala:110, :148	e.sqlState() == "23505"
DatasetResource.scala:1644	if (e.sqlState() == "23505")
NotebookMigrationResource.scala:331	e.sqlState == "23505"

Each module's dependsOn was checked first: NotebookMigrationService has a direct DAO dependency, and the other two reach it transitively (WorkflowCompiler → WorkflowOperator → WorkflowCore → DAO, and WorkflowCore → DAO). No build change was needed, and no module was given one. The constant was already in use by ExternalAuthProvisioner and LocalAuthProvisioner.

The remaining 23505 occurrences are CSV test fixtures, a yarn.lock checksum, SqlStates.scala itself, and two comments that explain what the code means — those are left alone.

amber's two inline copies are deliberately untouched

Worth recording so they are not "fixed" later: amber's remaining inline filters cannot use the shared one. They are javax.servlet, because amber pins Jetty 9.4.20, while RequestLoggingFilter is jakarta.servlet. Their existing TODO — replace once Dropwizard is upgraded — is accurate, and this PR does not touch them.

Verification

• WorkflowCompilingService/test: 2 suites, 13 tests, 0 failures. This matters because WorkflowCompilingServiceRunSpec has cases asserting the filter's registration, its dispatch set, and that it forwards the request while logging one access line. They read the filter back out of the captured FilterHolder rather than by class, so they survived the swap unchanged — and they are what confirms the shared filter behaves identically in place.
• NotebookMigrationResourceSpec: 28 passed. It drives a real unique-constraint violation against embedded Postgres, so it exercises the changed comparison.
• FileService/compile succeeds. DatasetResourceSpec extends MockLakeFS (testcontainers) and cannot run without Docker, which is unavailable here — for that site the evidence is compilation plus the provable value identity of the constant.
• PveResourceSpec fails 6 tests both with and without this change (37 succeeded / 6 failed / 1 canceled either way, verified by stashing the PveResource.scala edit and re-running). Pre-existing on this machine, unrelated to this PR.
• WorkflowCompilingService/scalafmtCheck and Test/scalafmtCheck pass; no imports were left orphaned (FilterHolder removed, RequestLoggingFilter added).

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7792

How was this PR tested?

sbt "WorkflowCompilingService/test" "FileService/compile" "NotebookMigrationService/testOnly org.apache.texera.service.resource.NotebookMigrationResourceSpec"

[info] Suites: completed 2, aborted 0
[info] Tests: succeeded 13, failed 0, canceled 0, ignored 0, pending 0
[info] Tests: succeeded 28, failed 0, canceled 0, ignored 0, pending 0

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: @SarahAsad23, @tanishqgandhi1908, @zyratlo
  You can notify them by mentioning @SarahAsad23, @tanishqgandhi1908, @zyratlo in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 40.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 91.22%. Comparing base (c927890) to head (c06291b).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...esource/pythonvirtualenvironment/PveResource.scala	0.00%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...ache/texera/service/resource/DatasetResource.scala	0.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (40.00%) is below the target coverage (60.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7796      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     91.25%   91.22%   -0.04%     
- Complexity     4471     4472       +1     
============================================
  Files          1171     1171              
  Lines         47124    47160      +36     
  Branches       5286     5304      +18     
============================================
+ Hits          43003    43020      +17     
- Misses         2447     2462      +15     
- Partials       1674     1678       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	98.62% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from c927890
amber	88.02% <0.00%> (ø)
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)
config-service	86.73% <ø> (ø)
file-service	68.90% <0.00%> (ø)
frontend	92.63% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from c927890
notebook-migration-service	79.11% <100.00%> (-4.63%)	⬇️
pyamber	97.57% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from c927890
workflow-compiling-service	72.34% <100.00%> (-4.86%)	⬇️

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

Compared against main ee06e4b 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	21,735/30,643/30,643 us	🔴 +10.0% / 🔴 +96.5%
🟢	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	955	0.583	104,153/120,668/120,668 us	🟢 -5.8% / 🔴 +13.0%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,109	0.677	898,265/999,996/999,996 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -7.5%

Baseline details

Latest main ee06e4b from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	433 tuples/sec	479 tuples/sec	771.02 tuples/sec	-9.6%	-43.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.264 MB/s	0.292 MB/s	0.471 MB/s	-9.6%	-43.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	21,735 us	21,743 us	12,749 us	-0.0%	+70.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	30,643 us	27,848 us	15,594 us	+10.0%	+96.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	30,643 us	27,848 us	19,320 us	+10.0%	+58.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	955 tuples/sec	976 tuples/sec	997.05 tuples/sec	-2.2%	-4.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.583 MB/s	0.596 MB/s	0.609 MB/s	-2.2%	-4.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	104,153 us	101,566 us	100,339 us	+2.5%	+3.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	120,668 us	128,099 us	106,781 us	-5.8%	+13.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	120,668 us	128,099 us	113,101 us	-5.8%	+6.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,109 tuples/sec	1,093 tuples/sec	1,037 tuples/sec	+1.5%	+6.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.677 MB/s	0.667 MB/s	0.633 MB/s	+1.5%	+6.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	898,265 us	918,148 us	971,388 us	-2.2%	-7.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	999,996 us	958,892 us	1,013,249 us	+4.3%	-1.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	999,996 us	958,892 us	1,039,879 us	+4.3%	-3.8%

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
0,10,10,64,20,461.79,200,128000,433,0.264,21735.29,30643.05,30643.05
1,100,10,64,20,2094.06,2000,1280000,955,0.583,104152.51,120667.70,120667.70
2,1000,10,64,20,18034.55,20000,12800000,1109,0.677,898265.13,999995.50,999995.50