[parshimers]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Simply update the SBT action to its latest patch release. This should stop the transitive dependency that expired from the ASF Infra allowlist from preventing the build from running

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #9072

How was this PR tested?

I didn't test it locally with act or similar, since the ASF allowlist isn't there. Ideally if nothing regressed from bypassing CI, then this should simply allow all the tests to run again.

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

Yes, Claude Opus 5.5

[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, @aicam, @kz930
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan, @aicam, @kz930 in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.33%. Comparing base (3ba45ee) to head (9d04666).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #9073   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     92.33%   92.33%           
- Complexity     5045     5047    +2     
=========================================
  Files          1261     1261           
  Lines         54120    54120           
  Branches       6768     6768           
=========================================
  Hits          49973    49973           
- Misses         2486     2488    +2     
+ Partials       1661     1659    -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
access-control-service	77.38% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	99.16% <ø> (ø)
amber	87.32% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	60.48% <ø> (ø)
config-service	87.37% <ø> (ø)
file-service	82.00% <ø> (ø)
frontend	96.56% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
notebook-migration-service	83.73% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	98.51% <ø> (-0.07%)	⬇️
workflow-compiling-service	72.43% <ø> (ø)

☔ 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

🟢 2 better · 🔴 2 worse · ⚪ 11 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 3ba45ee 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	546	0.333	18,259/21,653/21,653 us	🟢 -19.2% / 🔴 +71.5%
⚪	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	1,260	0.769	78,752/90,044/90,044 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -17.1%
🔴	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,454	0.888	684,128/808,274/808,274 us	🔴 +9.0% / 🟢 -15.7%

Baseline details

Latest main 3ba45ee from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	546 tuples/sec	557 tuples/sec	968.33 tuples/sec	-2.0%	-43.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.333 MB/s	0.34 MB/s	0.591 MB/s	-2.1%	-43.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	18,259 us	17,605 us	10,646 us	+3.7%	+71.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	21,653 us	26,788 us	14,120 us	-19.2%	+53.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	21,653 us	26,788 us	16,498 us	-19.2%	+31.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,260 tuples/sec	1,291 tuples/sec	1,252 tuples/sec	-2.4%	+0.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.769 MB/s	0.788 MB/s	0.764 MB/s	-2.4%	+0.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	78,752 us	76,442 us	83,736 us	+3.0%	-6.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	90,044 us	91,511 us	92,464 us	-1.6%	-2.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	90,044 us	91,511 us	108,561 us	-1.6%	-17.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,454 tuples/sec	1,485 tuples/sec	1,321 tuples/sec	-2.1%	+10.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.888 MB/s	0.906 MB/s	0.806 MB/s	-2.0%	+10.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	684,128 us	666,625 us	811,260 us	+2.6%	-15.7%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	808,274 us	741,665 us	847,636 us	+9.0%	-4.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	808,274 us	741,665 us	879,277 us	+9.0%	-8.1%

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
0,10,10,64,20,366.51,200,128000,546,0.333,18259.46,21653.01,21653.01
1,100,10,64,20,1587.45,2000,1280000,1260,0.769,78752.20,90044.15,90044.15
2,1000,10,64,20,13751.86,20000,12800000,1454,0.888,684128.03,808274.17,808274.17

[parshimers]

Seems like there's some other issue with the frontend workflow. I don't know what happened with the MacOS job- I can rerun that one, I don't know if anyone has noticed it to be flaky before.

[aglinxinyuan]

Seems like I already have a PR to fix the same issue. #9064

[parshimers]

Ah, I see! I was thinking maybe someone had already noticed it too.
What's blocking that PR from being merged, I saw it's approved? Do we have to wait for the failing actions to rerun, or should they be overriden?

[aglinxinyuan]

Ah, I see! I was thinking maybe someone had already noticed it too. What's blocking that PR from being merged, I saw it's approved? Do we have to wait for the failing actions to rerun, or should they be overriden?

I was waiting for the same frontend action to rerun. If the issue is deterministic, we can address it in a separate PR. Hopefully, it’s not a deadlock.

[parshimers]

Sounds good. I'll abandon this change for now, then.