feat(udf): enable Python UDF UI parameters end to end

[carloea2]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

This PR wires the existing Python UDF UI parameter support into the end-to-end execution path.

It changes:

Area	Change
Python UDF descriptors	Adds the uiParameters property to Python UDF, dual-input Python UDF, and Python UDF source operators.
Execution wiring	Applies PythonUdfUiParameterInjector.inject(...) before creating Python physical operators.
Frontend wiring	Connects the existing UI-parameter sync service to the code editor and property editor, and renders uiParameters with the existing UI-parameter editor.
Operator templates	Adds commented UiParameter examples to Python UDF templates.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Part of the Python UDF UI parameter feature split from feat/ui-parameter.

Related tracking issue / stack: #5044

Stack order:

1. Frontend UI parameter building blocks: feat(frontend): add Python UDF UI parameter form support #5043
2. Scala backend injection model: feat(workflow-operator): add Python UDF UI parameter injection model #5141
3. Python runtime support: feat(pyamber): support Python UDF UI parameters #5603
4. End-to-end execution wiring: this PR

How was this PR tested?

Manually +

Commands run:

sbt --no-server scalafmtAll scalafixAll
sbt --no-server scalafmtCheckAll "scalafixAll --check"

cd amber
ruff check src/main/python src/test/python
ruff format --check src/main/python src/test/python
cd ..

sbt --no-server "WorkflowExecutionService / Test / testOnly org.apache.texera.amber.engine.architecture.pythonworker.PythonWorkflowWorkerStartupConfigSpec"

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

Generated-by: Me

[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, @kunwp1, @aglinxinyuan
  You can notify them by mentioning @SarahAsad23, @kunwp1, @aglinxinyuan in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.45455% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 54.49%. Comparing base (6433e71) to head (de3717d).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
amber/src/main/python/pytexera/udf/udf_operator.py	96.80%	3 Missing ⚠️
...r/udf/python/DualInputPortsPythonUDFOpDescV2.scala	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
.../amber/operator/udf/python/PythonUDFOpDescV2.scala	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #5912      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     54.37%   54.49%   +0.12%     
- Complexity     2857     2861       +4     
============================================
  Files          1107     1107              
  Lines         42767    42885     +118     
  Branches       4599     4599              
============================================
+ Hits          23253    23369     +116     
- Misses        18160    18161       +1     
- Partials       1354     1355       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.44% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	34.36% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 6433e71
amber	56.19% <75.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	1.65% <ø> (ø)
config-service	57.35% <ø> (ø)
file-service	58.59% <ø> (ø)
frontend	48.27% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 6433e71
pyamber	90.39% <97.50%> (+0.18%)	⬆️
python	90.75% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 6433e71
workflow-compiling-service	58.69% <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]

✅ No material benchmark regressions detected

🟢 5 better · 🔴 0 worse · ⚪ 10 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 6433e71 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	428	0.261	22,335/34,925/34,925 us	🟢 -37.3% / 🟢 -6.1%
⚪	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	933	0.569	106,873/122,979/122,979 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -12.0%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,081	0.66	921,359/982,624/982,624 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -5.3%

Baseline details

Latest main 6433e71 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	428 tuples/sec	362 tuples/sec	410.82 tuples/sec	+18.2%	+4.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.261 MB/s	0.221 MB/s	0.251 MB/s	+18.1%	+4.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	22,335 us	25,868 us	23,785 us	-13.7%	-6.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	34,925 us	55,702 us	34,980 us	-37.3%	-0.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	34,925 us	55,702 us	34,980 us	-37.3%	-0.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	933 tuples/sec	938 tuples/sec	891.94 tuples/sec	-0.5%	+4.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.569 MB/s	0.572 MB/s	0.544 MB/s	-0.5%	+4.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	106,873 us	105,827 us	112,277 us	+1.0%	-4.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	122,979 us	129,387 us	139,802 us	-5.0%	-12.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	122,979 us	129,387 us	139,802 us	-5.0%	-12.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,081 tuples/sec	1,078 tuples/sec	1,041 tuples/sec	+0.3%	+3.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.66 MB/s	0.658 MB/s	0.635 MB/s	+0.3%	+3.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	921,359 us	924,790 us	972,714 us	-0.4%	-5.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	982,624 us	984,365 us	1,023,057 us	-0.2%	-4.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	982,624 us	984,365 us	1,023,057 us	-0.2%	-4.0%

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
0,10,10,64,20,467.35,200,128000,428,0.261,22335.23,34925.27,34925.27
1,100,10,64,20,2143.96,2000,1280000,933,0.569,106872.89,122979.31,122979.31
2,1000,10,64,20,18508.33,20000,12800000,1081,0.660,921358.97,982624.32,982624.32