Skip to content

refactor(workflow-core): drop dead fromString and import - #9181

Merged
aglinxinyuan merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
aglinxinyuan:refactor/workflow-core-dead-java-members
Oct 27, 2026
Merged

aglinxinyuan merged 2 commits into
apache:mainfrom
aglinxinyuan:refactor/workflow-core-dead-java-members

Conversation

@aglinxinyuan

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Removes unused Java members in common/workflow-core:

  1. ExecutionMode.fromString (ExecutionMode.java:26): Redundant wrapper public static ExecutionMode fromString(String value) { return valueOf(value); } with 0 callers across the repository (all callers use standard ExecutionMode.valueOf or direct enum constants).
  2. LargeBinary.java:25: Unused import import org.apache.texera.amber.core.executor.OperatorExecutor; with 0 references in the file.

+0/-3 lines. Pure deletion with no behaviour change.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #9180.

How was this PR tested?

  • Clean Java compile: javac ExecutionMode.java
  • Verified 0 callers repo-wide:
    git grep -nw "ExecutionMode.fromString" (1 hit, now 0)
    git grep -nw "OperatorExecutor" in LargeBinary.java (1 hit, now 0)

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

Generated-by: Antigravity (Claude Opus 5.5)

@aglinxinyuan aglinxinyuan added refactor Refactor the code common labels Oct 27, 2026
Copilot AI balanced review requested due to automatic review settings October 27, 2026 20:42
@aglinxinyuan aglinxinyuan self-assigned this Oct 27, 2026

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

  • Contributors with relevant context: @kunwp1
    You can notify them by mentioning @kunwp1 in a comment.

@aglinxinyuan
aglinxinyuan requested a review from kunwp1 October 27, 2026 20:43
@kunwp1
kunwp1 requested a lite review from Copilot October 27, 2026 20:50
@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Oct 27, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 91.98%. Comparing base (6659eec) to head (95b022c).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #9181      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     91.98%   91.98%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     5085     5083       -2     
============================================
  Files          1281     1281              
  Lines         55812    55811       -1     
  Branches       7076     7076              
============================================
- Hits          51338    51335       -3     
  Misses         2734     2734              
- Partials       1740     1742       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ *Carryforward flag
access-control-service 77.44% <ø> (ø)
agent-service 99.16% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from a40d1ed
amber 86.42% <ø> (-0.02%) ⬇️
computing-unit-managing-service 63.52% <ø> (ø)
config-service 87.50% <ø> (ø)
file-service 82.29% <ø> (ø)
frontend 96.53% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from a40d1ed
notebook-migration-service 83.77% <ø> (ø)
pyamber 98.48% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from a40d1ed
workflow-compiling-service 74.25% <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

github-actions Bot commented Oct 27, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

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

Compared against main 6659eec 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=64 385 0.235 25,375/32,589/32,589 us 🔴 +12.4% / 🔴 +136.6%
🔴 bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 808 0.493 119,681/164,737/164,737 us 🔴 +17.5% / 🔴 +76.9%
🔴 bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 954 0.582 1,034,041/1,186,156/1,186,156 us 🔴 +5.7% / 🔴 +34.6%
Baseline details

Latest main 6659eec from same runner

config metric PR latest main 7d avg Δ latest Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 385 tuples/sec 434 tuples/sec 941.58 tuples/sec -11.3% -59.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.235 MB/s 0.265 MB/s 0.575 MB/s -11.3% -59.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p50 25,375 us 22,568 us 10,991 us +12.4% +130.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p95 32,589 us 34,438 us 13,776 us -5.4% +136.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p99 32,589 us 34,438 us 16,872 us -5.4% +93.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 808 tuples/sec 860 tuples/sec 1,264 tuples/sec -6.0% -36.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.493 MB/s 0.525 MB/s 0.772 MB/s -6.1% -36.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p50 119,681 us 114,770 us 86,073 us +4.3% +39.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p95 164,737 us 140,155 us 93,135 us +17.5% +76.9%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p99 164,737 us 140,155 us 111,124 us +17.5% +48.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 954 tuples/sec 968 tuples/sec 1,304 tuples/sec -1.4% -26.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.582 MB/s 0.591 MB/s 0.796 MB/s -1.5% -26.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p50 1,034,041 us 1,031,658 us 841,986 us +0.2% +22.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p95 1,186,156 us 1,122,721 us 881,107 us +5.7% +34.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p99 1,186,156 us 1,122,721 us 918,208 us +5.7% +29.2%
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
0,10,10,64,20,518.89,200,128000,385,0.235,25375.16,32589.02,32589.02
1,100,10,64,20,2474.22,2000,1280000,808,0.493,119680.52,164737.06,164737.06
2,1000,10,64,20,20962.93,20000,12800000,954,0.582,1034040.85,1186155.77,1186155.77

Copilot AI left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🟢 Approval recommended

No active issues remain: the change removes only an unused helper and import, with no remaining references to either.

No open issues 🎉

Review effort: Lite

@kunwp1
kunwp1 enabled auto-merge October 27, 2026 21:14
@aglinxinyuan
aglinxinyuan disabled auto-merge October 27, 2026 22:34
@aglinxinyuan
aglinxinyuan added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 27, 2026
Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit 673daeb Oct 27, 2026
32 checks passed
@aglinxinyuan
aglinxinyuan deleted the refactor/workflow-core-dead-java-members branch October 27, 2026 23:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

common refactor Refactor the code

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Remove dead fromString wrapper and import from workflow-core

4 participants