feat(amber): reject invalid dashboard resource type

[carloea2]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Return BadRequestException for an unknown dashboard resource type instead of an unhandled IllegalArgumentException.

Before: invalid resource types return 500.
After: they return 400 with a specific message.

Update the exception assertions in both dashboard test suites.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8143

How was this PR tested?

Retested in a fresh detached worktree from upstream main at 7426431337, which includes #8938. The regression assertions failed before the implementation change: 3 failed and 83 passed. After the change, all 86 focused tests pass.

Used JDK 17 and a disposable PostgreSQL database initialized from sql/texera_ddl.sql. The tests use embedded PostgreSQL. Object-storage endpoints were isolated for the passing run.

$env:STORAGE_JDBC_URL='jdbc:postgresql://127.0.0.1:55489/oct15_review?currentSchema=texera_db,public'
$env:STORAGE_S3_ENDPOINT='http://127.0.0.1:1'
$env:STORAGE_LAKEFS_ENDPOINT='http://127.0.0.1:1/api/v1'
sbt -batch "WorkflowExecutionService/testOnly *DashboardResourceSpec *dashboard.file.WorkflowResourceSpec -- -oDF" "scalafixAll --check" scalafmtCheckAll

Repository lint, formatting and whitespace checks pass.

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

Generated-by: Codex

[github-actions]

Backport auto-label report

This fix: PR was checked against each actively-supported release branch. release/* labels drive the post-merge backport, so add or remove one to change where this fix lands.

Release branch	Analysis
⚠️ release/v1.3	Not labeled automatically — none of the files this PR modifies exist on this branch (amber/src/main/scala/org/apache/texera/web/resource/dashboard/DashboardResource.scala, amber/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/web/resource/dashboard/DashboardResourceSpec.scala). The fix may target code that isn't on this release, or the files were moved/renamed after the branch was cut. Please check and add release/v1.3 by hand if this fix should be backported here.
✅ release/v1.2	Change detected on this branch — label added; this fix is queued to backport here. Requested review from @xuang7.

Auto-label run.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• Contributors with relevant context: @aglinxinyuan, @yangzhang75
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan, @yangzhang75 in a comment.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 2 better · 🔴 5 worse · ⚪ 8 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 7426431 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	388	0.237	25,175/32,029/32,029 us	🟢 -18.4% / 🔴 +107.6%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	786	0.48	126,162/146,877/146,877 us	🔴 +8.8% / 🔴 +41.0%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	912	0.557	1,094,496/1,183,740/1,183,740 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +20.1%

Baseline details

Latest main 7426431 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	388 tuples/sec	392 tuples/sec	822.11 tuples/sec	-1.0%	-52.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.237 MB/s	0.239 MB/s	0.502 MB/s	-0.8%	-52.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	25,175 us	24,876 us	12,129 us	+1.2%	+107.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	32,029 us	39,232 us	15,469 us	-18.4%	+107.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	32,029 us	39,232 us	18,357 us	-18.4%	+74.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	786 tuples/sec	841 tuples/sec	1,058 tuples/sec	-6.5%	-25.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.48 MB/s	0.513 MB/s	0.646 MB/s	-6.4%	-25.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	126,162 us	117,485 us	97,399 us	+7.4%	+29.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	146,877 us	134,996 us	104,184 us	+8.8%	+41.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	146,877 us	134,996 us	117,615 us	+8.8%	+24.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	912 tuples/sec	920 tuples/sec	1,099 tuples/sec	-0.9%	-17.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.557 MB/s	0.561 MB/s	0.671 MB/s	-0.7%	-17.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,094,496 us	1,086,993 us	946,743 us	+0.7%	+15.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,183,740 us	1,137,898 us	985,437 us	+4.0%	+20.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,183,740 us	1,137,898 us	1,012,622 us	+4.0%	+16.9%

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
0,10,10,64,20,515.07,200,128000,388,0.237,25174.99,32029.38,32029.38
1,100,10,64,20,2544.79,2000,1280000,786,0.480,126161.85,146876.57,146876.57
2,1000,10,64,20,21931.00,20000,12800000,912,0.557,1094496.44,1183740.37,1183740.37

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.31%. Comparing base (7426431) to head (ad490c9).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #8144   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     92.30%   92.31%           
- Complexity     5046     5047    +1     
=========================================
  Files          1260     1260           
  Lines         53887    53887           
  Branches       6711     6711           
=========================================
+ Hits          49743    49745    +2     
  Misses         2486     2486           
+ Partials       1658     1656    -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	77.38% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431
agent-service	99.16% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431
amber	87.33% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	60.48% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431
config-service	87.37% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431
file-service	82.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431
frontend	96.55% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431
notebook-migration-service	83.73% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431
pyamber	98.53% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431
workflow-compiling-service	72.43% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7426431

*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.

[Yicong-Huang]

🟢 0 must-fix · 0 advisory · 2 polish — a clean one-line fix; both notes are text-level and neither blocks the merge.

Polish: 2 quick touch-ups (see inline comments).

Verification trace

Checked that the exception swap actually changes the status rather than assuming it does. amber registers no ExceptionMapper of its own, so the old IllegalArgumentException hit Dropwizard's generic Throwable handler; javax.ws.rs.BadRequestException carries its own Response.status(BAD_REQUEST) and takes the CLIENT_ERROR branch — which also stops the attacker-supplied string being logged. The approach matches an existing repo pattern (WorkflowExecutionsResource.scala:685, with the rationale spelled out at ComputingUnitAccessResource.scala:117-119).

Both endpoints that reach the guard are covered by the single line — /dashboard/search and the anonymous /dashboard/publicSearch — and the frontend's only status-sensitive interceptor gates on 401 alone, so nothing downstream changes.

Four concerns were investigated and dismissed with evidence rather than dropped. The one worth naming: @QueryParam("includePublic ") in this same file carries a trailing space, which looks like a live bug and is not — publicSearch passes a null uid and WorkflowSearchQueryBuilder.scala:83 forces IS_PUBLIC = true regardless of that flag.

[carloea2]

Updates are in and CI is green. Ready to merge when you have a chance.

[carloea2]

Amber CI failed in unrelated WorkflowResourceSpec. The dashboard tests passed. Could someone rerun the failed job?

[carloea2]

I reproduced the CI failure locally. WorkflowResourceSpec still expected IllegalArgumentException after this PR changed it to BadRequestException. Updated that assertion in 6802e98. Both resource suites now pass all 87 tests, and scalafixAll --check and scalafmtCheckAll pass.

[carloea2]

@Yicong-Huang, the refreshed checks are green. Could you take a final look and merge when ready? The stale fix label should be feature.