ci: label amber binary manifests

[anthonychengit]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Map Amber's four binary-license/NOTICE manifests to the CI stacks that validate them, and add a regression test that protects the mapping.

Before	After
Manifest-only edit → labeler removes stack labels → validation skips	Java/NOTICE edit → engine; Python license edit → pyamber

The Python-only manifest intentionally does not select the Scala engine stack.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8294

How was this PR tested?

The regression test failed on the original labeler configuration, then passed with this change:

bash -lc './.github/scripts/test_labeler_manifests.sh'
bash -n .github/scripts/test_labeler_manifests.sh

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

Generated-by: Codex was used for implementation and verification assistance. I reviewed the final code and test output before submission.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

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

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.89%. Comparing base (7190a81) to head (3b43ee3).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8530      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     95.88%   95.89%   +0.01%     
  Complexity      459      459              
============================================
  Files           588      588              
  Lines         33802    33802              
  Branches       4217     4217              
============================================
+ Hits          32411    32415       +4     
+ Misses          813      811       -2     
+ Partials        578      576       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	80.18% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)
amber	90.82% <ø> (ø)
computing-unit-managing-service	77.14% <ø> (ø)
config-service	87.12% <ø> (ø)
file-service	83.65% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 7190a81
frontend	96.70% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
notebook-migration-service	83.73% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	98.47% <ø> (+0.06%)	⬆️
workflow-compiling-service	74.09% <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]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 4 better · 🔴 6 worse · ⚪ 5 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 7190a81 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	364	0.222	27,678/31,542/31,542 us	🔴 +29.4% / 🔴 +133.0%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	776	0.474	127,238/148,552/148,552 us	🟢 -7.3% / 🔴 +49.3%
🔴	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	907	0.553	1,100,476/1,219,298/1,219,298 us	🔴 +10.1% / 🔴 +28.2%

Baseline details

Latest main 7190a81 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	364 tuples/sec	423 tuples/sec	838.23 tuples/sec	-13.9%	-56.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.222 MB/s	0.258 MB/s	0.512 MB/s	-14.0%	-56.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	27,678 us	21,389 us	11,878 us	+29.4%	+133.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	31,542 us	34,202 us	14,690 us	-7.8%	+114.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	31,542 us	34,202 us	18,483 us	-7.8%	+70.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	776 tuples/sec	806 tuples/sec	1,095 tuples/sec	-3.7%	-29.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.474 MB/s	0.492 MB/s	0.668 MB/s	-3.7%	-29.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	127,238 us	120,766 us	92,901 us	+5.4%	+37.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	148,552 us	160,295 us	99,480 us	-7.3%	+49.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	148,552 us	160,295 us	112,580 us	-7.3%	+32.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	907 tuples/sec	926 tuples/sec	1,126 tuples/sec	-2.1%	-19.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.553 MB/s	0.565 MB/s	0.687 MB/s	-2.1%	-19.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,100,476 us	1,081,013 us	912,010 us	+1.8%	+20.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,219,298 us	1,107,923 us	950,922 us	+10.1%	+28.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,219,298 us	1,107,923 us	983,333 us	+10.1%	+24.0%

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
0,10,10,64,20,549.84,200,128000,364,0.222,27677.62,31541.90,31541.90
1,100,10,64,20,2575.88,2000,1280000,776,0.474,127238.34,148551.68,148551.68
2,1000,10,64,20,22056.36,20000,12800000,907,0.553,1100476.45,1219297.60,1219297.60

[anthonychengit]

/request-review

CI note: the remaining Amber and file-service failures are the repository-wide MinIO image outage (minio/minio:RELEASE.2025-02-28T09-55-16Z returns HTTP 404). The PR-specific shell regression test and syntax checks pass as documented above.

[github-actions]

Please specify at least one reviewer: /request-review @user.
Check the suggestion comment on this PR for candidates.