fix(amber): correct WorkerSpec input port to stop flaky timeouts

[Ma77Ball]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

• WorkerSpec's input-port AssignPortRequest now passes an empty storageUris (List()) matching its empty partitionings, satisfying InputManager.addPort's size invariant, so the input port registers and the three worker tests pass deterministically.
• AsyncRPCServer.invokeMethod now re-throws Errors (e.g. failed assertions) after replying to the sender, instead of swallowing them; normal Exceptions are still returned to the sender unchanged, so genuine invariant violations surface loudly rather than degrading into flaky timeouts.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes: #6036

How was this PR tested?

• Run sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/testOnly *WorkerSpec"; expect Tests: succeeded 3, failed 0.
• Diagnostic: grep the run log for assertion failed. Before this fix the count is 3 (the assertion fired and was swallowed every run); after it is 0. Verified locally under Java 17.
• The full amber suite is heavy and flaky to run locally, so the engine-wide AsyncRPCServer change is left to the amber CI job to exercise across all RPC handlers.

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

Co-authored with Claude Opus 4.8 in compliance with ASF

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

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

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 4 worse · ⚪ 11 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 24b587f 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	392	0.239	24,592/33,541/33,541 us	🔴 -8.1% / 🔴 +119.4%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	830	0.507	116,487/153,454/153,454 us	🔴 +7.8% / 🔴 +41.6%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	952	0.581	1,051,134/1,084,853/1,084,853 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 -5.7%

Baseline details

Latest main 24b587f from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	392 tuples/sec	426 tuples/sec	770.95 tuples/sec	-8.0%	-49.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.239 MB/s	0.26 MB/s	0.471 MB/s	-8.1%	-49.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	24,592 us	24,489 us	12,775 us	+0.4%	+92.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	33,541 us	31,963 us	15,286 us	+4.9%	+119.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	33,541 us	31,963 us	18,795 us	+4.9%	+78.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	830 tuples/sec	843 tuples/sec	976.93 tuples/sec	-1.5%	-15.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.507 MB/s	0.515 MB/s	0.596 MB/s	-1.6%	-15.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	116,487 us	118,153 us	102,557 us	-1.4%	+13.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	153,454 us	142,316 us	108,383 us	+7.8%	+41.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	153,454 us	142,316 us	115,249 us	+7.8%	+33.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	952 tuples/sec	953 tuples/sec	1,009 tuples/sec	-0.1%	-5.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.581 MB/s	0.582 MB/s	0.616 MB/s	-0.2%	-5.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,051,134 us	1,043,762 us	997,695 us	+0.7%	+5.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,084,853 us	1,101,275 us	1,036,731 us	-1.5%	+4.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,084,853 us	1,101,275 us	1,069,334 us	-1.5%	+1.5%

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
0,10,10,64,20,510.10,200,128000,392,0.239,24592.35,33540.60,33540.60
1,100,10,64,20,2408.79,2000,1280000,830,0.507,116486.79,153453.63,153453.63
2,1000,10,64,20,21010.36,20000,12800000,952,0.581,1051134.32,1084852.93,1084852.93

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 56.38%. Comparing base (24b587f) to head (cdccb02).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...exera/amber/engine/common/rpc/AsyncRPCServer.scala	0.00%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) 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    #6037      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     56.89%   56.38%   -0.52%     
- Complexity     3058     3062       +4     
============================================
  Files          1129     1142      +13     
  Lines         43802    44154     +352     
  Branches       4743     4758      +15     
============================================
- Hits          24922    24896      -26     
- Misses        17449    17828     +379     
+ Partials       1431     1430       -1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
agent-service	44.59% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
amber	57.36% <0.00%> (-1.29%)	⬇️
computing-unit-managing-service	0.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
config-service	52.30% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
file-service	62.81% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
frontend	50.12% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
notebook-migration-service	78.57% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
pyamber	90.51% <ø> (-0.64%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
python	90.69% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0
workflow-compiling-service	55.14% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from a1a7eb0

*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]

how come non errors can reach here? that's a bigger problem...

with your change, this "non-error" is omitted silently...

can we at least log warning when it happens?

[Ma77Ball]

Dropped the throw since it can take down the actor loop. The Error was an AssertionError from the test's mismatched addPort args; it now just logs a warning so it's not silent.

[Yicong-Huang]

The src code seems to have a bigger issue. we should not make source code less robust to satisfy test cases...

[Ma77Ball]

Reverted the re-throw. Fixed the real root cause: the test passed mismatched storageUris/partitionings, now corrected in one line. AsyncRPCServer only keeps a warning log so a swallowed Error isn't silent.