[yangzhang75]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Which version is the public one should be answerable, and the answer should be a row the author
can already see — the version panel is where they go to look at, and restore, an earlier version.

• A pin leaves an anchor in the revision history. Its delta is the identity patch, so replaying
  that row returns what was published however many edits pile up later. An existing version row
  cannot stand in: one replays to the content as it was before the change it records, so it
  names the wrong thing by exactly one save. Pinning again with nothing changed reuses the anchor
  rather than adding a twin, and workflow.published_version_id names it.
• The anchor is a marker, not an edit. It is always shown, so the author can find and restore
  what the public has, but it must not start the panel's aggregation window — the save it was
  pinned from is seconds older and would otherwise be folded into it and disappear.
• The public view is dated by the version on show, not by the author's most recent private
  edit, and the share dialog names the same date from the same row, so the two cannot disagree.
• Pinning takes the row's lock first. Two pins racing would otherwise both read before either
  wrote, and both insert an anchor.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7941
Part of #7828. Design discussion: #7128. Stacked on #8576; until that merges this PR shows
its commit too, and the review here is the last one.

How was this PR tested?

7 new cases in WorkflowPublishSpec and WorkflowVersionResourceSpec (572 in the dashboard
package):

• an anchor the author can identify in the panel, and the save it was pinned from still visible
  beside it rather than folded into it;
• pinning again unchanged reusing the anchor instead of adding a second one;
• the version the pin was taken from surviving after the pin is dropped;
• the public view dated by the pinned version, and the same date reported by the share dialog;
• a workflow that is following carrying no anchor at all.

scalafmtCheckAll clean.

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Opus 5)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[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, @tanishqgandhi1908
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan, @tanishqgandhi1908 in a comment.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

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

Compared against main 3726dd7 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	389	0.238	25,651/30,788/30,788 us	🔴 +20.5% / 🔴 +140.9%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	800	0.488	125,421/135,560/135,560 us	🟢 -5.8% / 🔴 +49.8%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	920	0.561	1,083,719/1,165,419/1,165,419 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +37.5%

Baseline details

Latest main 3726dd7 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	389 tuples/sec	425 tuples/sec	968.33 tuples/sec	-8.5%	-59.8%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.238 MB/s	0.259 MB/s	0.591 MB/s	-8.1%	-59.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	25,651 us	21,286 us	10,646 us	+20.5%	+140.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	30,788 us	34,010 us	14,120 us	-9.5%	+118.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	30,788 us	34,010 us	16,498 us	-9.5%	+86.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	800 tuples/sec	842 tuples/sec	1,252 tuples/sec	-5.0%	-36.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.488 MB/s	0.514 MB/s	0.764 MB/s	-5.1%	-36.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	125,421 us	118,680 us	83,736 us	+5.7%	+49.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	135,560 us	143,875 us	92,464 us	-5.8%	+46.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	135,560 us	143,875 us	108,561 us	-5.8%	+24.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	920 tuples/sec	920 tuples/sec	1,321 tuples/sec	0.0%	-30.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.561 MB/s	0.561 MB/s	0.806 MB/s	0.0%	-30.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,083,719 us	1,085,986 us	811,260 us	-0.2%	+33.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,165,419 us	1,142,211 us	847,636 us	+2.0%	+37.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,165,419 us	1,142,211 us	879,277 us	+2.0%	+32.5%

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
0,10,10,64,20,513.90,200,128000,389,0.238,25650.74,30787.87,30787.87
1,100,10,64,20,2499.85,2000,1280000,800,0.488,125421.46,135559.87,135559.87
2,1000,10,64,20,21747.49,20000,12800000,920,0.561,1083718.59,1165419.02,1165419.02

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 96.74797% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 92.34%. Comparing base (3726dd7) to head (43494d3).
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...shboard/user/workflow/WorkflowPublishService.scala	94.87%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...ra/web/resource/dashboard/SearchQueryBuilder.scala	50.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...esource/dashboard/WorkflowSearchQueryBuilder.scala	97.95%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8577      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     92.33%   92.34%   +0.01%     
- Complexity     5045     5046       +1     
============================================
  Files          1260     1260              
  Lines         54067    54165      +98     
  Branches       6755     6764       +9     
============================================
+ Hits          49921    50018      +97     
- Misses         2486     2489       +3     
+ Partials       1660     1658       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	77.38% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f
agent-service	99.16% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f
amber	87.37% <96.74%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	60.48% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f
config-service	87.37% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f
file-service	82.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f
frontend	96.55% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f
notebook-migration-service	83.73% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f
pyamber	98.57% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f
workflow-compiling-service	72.43% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from f44c37f

*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.