test(pyamber): cover the statistics and pause managers

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Two manager specs extended, 19 tests to 27.

File	Codecov fully-covered	Branch arms
statistics_manager.py	41/45 → 45/45	12/14 → 14/14
pause_manager.py	42/45 → 45/45	12/14 → 14/14

+7 fully-covered lines and +4 branch arms. Both files reach 100% on lines and branches.

statistics_manager.py's gap was 94: 50% (1/2), 95: MISS, 101: 50% (1/2), 102: MISS — the arms deciding whether an input or output statistics update is recorded at all. pause_manager.py's was the channel pause/resume paths, including both change_state=False variants and the global-pause queue cycle.

Two files were dropped from this bundle on measurement: state_manager.py (1 line) and linked_blocking_multi_queue.py, whose four partial lines did not survive scrutiny despite its 78 branch arms. core/util/customized_queue/inner.py sits in the same package and shows 2 partials plus 5 missed lines, but it is vendored third-party code and was refused rather than counted.

Verification

Two reviewers returned eleven findings — the most of any bundle in this batch. The builder had reported survivors: [], which the reviewers showed was materially wrong.

46 mutations were run one at a time against the final tree; 44 die, and 15 of those die at exactly one test each. The two that survive are reported rather than dropped, both genuinely equivalent:

• Exchanging the .add(channel_id) and disable(channel_id) statements inside pause_input_channel — both statements are individually pinned by separate tests, so the order is unobservable.
• Replacing the guarded remove with discard — discard is by definition remove if present.

Measured from amber/ with the identical full-suite scope on both sides and --cov-branch passed explicitly, since this branch is on main and amber/pyproject.toml has no [tool.coverage.run] section (verified by reading it: only the three ruff tables and pytest.ini_options exist). Per-line hits and condition-coverage were read out of coverage.xml by a parser script; summary percentages ignored. The before-state was produced by writing the HEAD content of the two test files into the tree from a scratch extraction and restoring the new versions from a scratch snapshot afterwards, sha256-verified. No git restore or git checkout was run on any file.

Full pyamber suite: 5 failed, 1167 passed, 7 errors against main's 1159 passed. Failure sets sorted and diffed — identical by identity, 12 entries. ruff check and ruff format --check pass on CI's exact scope.

No production file is touched; git diff -- 'amber/src/main/*' is empty.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8045

How was this PR tested?

cd amber && python -m pytest -m "not integration" -q src/test/python/core/architecture/managers

27 passed

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5)

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• Contributors with relevant context: @Yicong-Huang, @Ma77Ball
  You can notify them by mentioning @Yicong-Huang, @Ma77Ball in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.42%. Comparing base (b01b11f) to head (4ffe6b8).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #8049   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     93.41%   93.42%           
  Complexity     4696     4696           
=========================================
  Files          1179     1179           
  Lines         47713    47713           
  Branches       5314     5314           
=========================================
+ Hits          44573    44576    +3     
+ Misses         1698     1695    -3     
  Partials       1442     1442           

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983
amber	89.60% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983
config-service	86.73% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983
file-service	86.70% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983
frontend	95.89% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983
notebook-migration-service	79.31% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983
pyamber	97.85% <ø> (+0.06%)	⬆️
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from bc43983

*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 · 🔴 1 worse · ⚪ 10 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main b01b11f 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	713	0.435	14,600/16,394/16,394 us	🟢 -30.5% / 🔴 +30.6%
⚪	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	1,652	1.008	56,841/91,322/91,322 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 +42.7%
🟢	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	2,042	1.247	483,624/559,252/559,252 us	🟢 -7.9% / 🟢 +72.2%

Baseline details

Latest main b01b11f from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	713 tuples/sec	707 tuples/sec	893.99 tuples/sec	+0.8%	-20.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.435 MB/s	0.432 MB/s	0.546 MB/s	+0.7%	-20.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	14,600 us	12,830 us	11,176 us	+13.8%	+30.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	16,394 us	23,605 us	14,009 us	-30.5%	+17.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	16,394 us	23,605 us	16,898 us	-30.5%	-3.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,652 tuples/sec	1,588 tuples/sec	1,157 tuples/sec	+4.0%	+42.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	1.008 MB/s	0.969 MB/s	0.706 MB/s	+4.0%	+42.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	56,841 us	58,354 us	88,763 us	-2.6%	-36.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	91,322 us	87,705 us	95,096 us	+4.1%	-4.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	91,322 us	87,705 us	102,854 us	+4.1%	-11.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	2,042 tuples/sec	2,026 tuples/sec	1,187 tuples/sec	+0.8%	+72.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	1.247 MB/s	1.236 MB/s	0.724 MB/s	+0.9%	+72.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	483,624 us	486,026 us	874,968 us	-0.5%	-44.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	559,252 us	606,959 us	917,815 us	-7.9%	-39.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	559,252 us	606,959 us	949,868 us	-7.9%	-41.1%

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
0,10,10,64,20,280.51,200,128000,713,0.435,14600.17,16394.40,16394.40
1,100,10,64,20,1210.62,2000,1280000,1652,1.008,56840.63,91322.18,91322.18
2,1000,10,64,20,9792.73,20000,12800000,2042,1.247,483624.46,559251.83,559251.83

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

[mengw15]

LGTM