fix(amber): include requester name in account email

[anthonychengit]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

The account-request notification only forwarded the requester's email address to the template. Although the stored user record already contains the requester's name, the notification path never retrieved it.

Before: account request -> email only -> admin notification omits name
After:  account request -> stored user lookup -> admin receives name and email

This change looks up the stored requester by email and includes the name in the admin notification. Missing or blank names render as Not provided. The requester-facing acknowledgement remains unchanged and does not expose the name field.

Tests cover the positive stored-name path, the missing-requester fallback, blank and absent names, and the negative requester-facing template case.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7595

How was this PR tested?

sbt "WorkflowExecutionService / Test / testOnly org.apache.texera.web.resource.EmailTemplateSpec org.apache.texera.web.resource.GmailResourceSpec"
sbt scalafmtCheckAll
sbt "scalafixAll --check"

The focused suite passed 12 tests. Scala formatting and Scalafix checks also passed.

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

Generated-by: OpenAI Codex (GPT-5)

[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/v1.2	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: @Ma77Ball, @Yicong-Huang, @aglinxinyuan
  You can notify them by mentioning @Ma77Ball, @Yicong-Huang, @aglinxinyuan in a comment.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

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

Compared against main 1022c7d 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	355	0.217	26,629/38,638/38,638 us	🔴 +8.7% / 🔴 +139.0%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	767	0.468	129,934/149,626/149,626 us	🔴 +10.8% / 🔴 +41.7%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	899	0.549	1,104,452/1,199,127/1,199,127 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +18.5%

Baseline details

Latest main 1022c7d from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	355 tuples/sec	386 tuples/sec	784.16 tuples/sec	-8.0%	-54.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.217 MB/s	0.235 MB/s	0.479 MB/s	-7.7%	-54.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	26,629 us	24,586 us	12,626 us	+8.3%	+110.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	38,638 us	35,541 us	16,169 us	+8.7%	+139.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	38,638 us	35,541 us	18,986 us	+8.7%	+103.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	767 tuples/sec	823 tuples/sec	1,023 tuples/sec	-6.8%	-25.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.468 MB/s	0.502 MB/s	0.625 MB/s	-6.8%	-25.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	129,934 us	121,325 us	99,185 us	+7.1%	+31.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	149,626 us	135,016 us	105,616 us	+10.8%	+41.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	149,626 us	135,016 us	113,681 us	+10.8%	+31.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	899 tuples/sec	904 tuples/sec	1,057 tuples/sec	-0.6%	-14.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.549 MB/s	0.552 MB/s	0.645 MB/s	-0.5%	-14.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,104,452 us	1,101,663 us	965,435 us	+0.3%	+14.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,199,127 us	1,189,864 us	1,012,135 us	+0.8%	+18.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,199,127 us	1,189,864 us	1,042,088 us	+0.8%	+15.1%

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
0,10,10,64,20,562.64,200,128000,355,0.217,26629.16,38638.19,38638.19
1,100,10,64,20,2607.05,2000,1280000,767,0.468,129933.54,149625.71,149625.71
2,1000,10,64,20,22235.14,20000,12800000,899,0.549,1104452.46,1199127.03,1199127.03

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.65%. Comparing base (1022c7d) to head (238368d).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #7639   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     90.64%   90.65%           
- Complexity     4439     4441    +2     
=========================================
  Files          1175     1175           
  Lines         47140    47145    +5     
  Branches       5284     5284           
=========================================
+ Hits          42729    42737    +8     
+ Misses         2697     2696    -1     
+ Partials       1714     1712    -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d
agent-service	98.62% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d
amber	87.29% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	72.46% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d
config-service	77.55% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d
file-service	68.90% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d
frontend	92.15% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d
notebook-migration-service	79.31% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d
pyamber	97.52% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d
workflow-compiling-service	57.89% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1022c7d

*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.