ci: guard smoke boot on backports

[anthonychengit]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Guard each smoke-boot.sh invocation with hashFiles so backport checks skip only that smoke step when an older release tree does not contain the script.

Before	After
Main workflow + release/v1.2 tree → missing script → exit 127	Script exists → smoke test runs; script absent → step skips cleanly

Builds and test suites remain unchanged.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8295

How was this PR tested?

The regression test found 0/3 guarded calls before the fix and 3/3 afterward:

bash -lc './.github/scripts/test_backport_smoke_guard.sh'
bash -n .github/scripts/test_backport_smoke_guard.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: @aglinxinyuan
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan 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 (0baab8a).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8531      +/-   ##
============================================
+ 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

🟢 0 better · 🔴 8 worse · ⚪ 7 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	357	0.218	26,278/37,244/37,244 us	🔴 +10.9% / 🔴 +153.5%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	764	0.466	127,921/166,379/166,379 us	🔴 +6.3% / 🔴 +67.2%
🔴	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	903	0.551	1,099,526/1,247,738/1,247,738 us	🔴 +8.1% / 🔴 +31.2%

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	357 tuples/sec	377 tuples/sec	838.23 tuples/sec	-5.3%	-57.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.218 MB/s	0.23 MB/s	0.512 MB/s	-5.2%	-57.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	26,278 us	23,697 us	11,878 us	+10.9%	+121.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	37,244 us	38,348 us	14,690 us	-2.9%	+153.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	37,244 us	38,348 us	18,483 us	-2.9%	+101.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	764 tuples/sec	806 tuples/sec	1,095 tuples/sec	-5.2%	-30.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.466 MB/s	0.492 MB/s	0.668 MB/s	-5.3%	-30.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	127,921 us	120,354 us	92,901 us	+6.3%	+37.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	166,379 us	164,328 us	99,480 us	+1.2%	+67.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	166,379 us	164,328 us	112,580 us	+1.2%	+47.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	903 tuples/sec	903 tuples/sec	1,126 tuples/sec	0.0%	-19.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.551 MB/s	0.551 MB/s	0.687 MB/s	0.0%	-19.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,099,526 us	1,103,426 us	912,010 us	-0.4%	+20.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,247,738 us	1,154,010 us	950,922 us	+8.1%	+31.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,247,738 us	1,154,010 us	983,333 us	+8.1%	+26.9%

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
0,10,10,64,20,559.94,200,128000,357,0.218,26278.41,37244.31,37244.31
1,100,10,64,20,2619.48,2000,1280000,764,0.466,127920.92,166379.44,166379.44
2,1000,10,64,20,22147.45,20000,12800000,903,0.551,1099525.83,1247738.22,1247738.22

[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.