feat(frontend): add sort by execution time with nulls last

[roshiiiz]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

This PR adds the ability to sort workflows by "Execution Time" on the main Dashboard, and ensures that workflows which have never been executed (where execution time is null) are pushed to the bottom of the list rather than awkwardly floating at the top.

Changes made:

• Added "Execution time" as an option in the frontend sort dropdown menu (sort-method.ts, sort-button.component).
• Updated UnifiedResourceSchema.scala in the backend to include resourceExecutionTimeField.
• Updated DashboardResource.scala and WorkflowSearchQueryBuilder.scala to handle the new sort condition, specifically appending .nullsLast() so that un-executed workflows drop to the bottom of the list.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #3406

How was this PR tested?

Tested manually in a local development environment:

1. Booted the local dashboard and backend via sbt.
2. Created a new, unexecuted "Untitled Workflow".
3. Navigated to the Dashboard and sorted by "Execution Time".
4. Verified that the unexecuted workflow correctly fell to the bottom of the list instead of appearing at the top.

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

Generated-by: Antigravity (DeepMind)

[github-actions]

👋 Thanks for your first contribution to Texera, @roshiiiz!

If you're looking for a good place to start, browse issues labeled starter-task; they're scoped to be approachable for newcomers.

You can drive common housekeeping yourself by commenting one of these commands on its own line:

• Issues. Comment /take to assign an open issue to yourself, or /untake to release it. You can find unclaimed work with the search filter is:issue is:open no:assignee.
• Sub-issues. To link issues into a parent/child hierarchy, comment /sub-issue #5166 #5222 on the parent to attach those children (or /unsub-issue #5166 #5222 to detach them). From a child issue, comment /parent-issue #5166 to set its parent, or /unparent-issue to clear it (the current parent is detected automatically). References may be written as #5166 or as a bare 5166; cross-repository references are not supported.
• Pull requests (author only). Comment /request-review @user to request a review from someone, or /unrequest-review @user to withdraw that request.

Each command must match exactly: /take this will not work, only /take does. For the full contribution flow, see CONTRIBUTING.md.

[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, @xuang7, @carloea2
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan, @xuang7, @carloea2 in a comment.

[roshiiiz]

/request-review @xuang7

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 79.16667% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 56.78%. Comparing base (3f87773) to head (fc4bc87).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...era/web/resource/dashboard/DashboardResource.scala	28.57%	1 Missing and 4 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #5890      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     56.81%   56.78%   -0.04%     
+ Complexity     3024     3009      -15     
============================================
  Files          1126     1125       -1     
  Lines         43702    43653      -49     
  Branches       4733     4728       -5     
============================================
- Hits          24831    24789      -42     
+ Misses        17398    17393       -5     
+ Partials       1473     1471       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ce23c01
agent-service	44.59% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ce23c01
amber	58.61% <70.58%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	0.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ce23c01
config-service	51.56% <ø> (-0.75%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from ce23c01
file-service	59.02% <ø> (-3.80%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from ce23c01
frontend	50.01% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
notebook-migration-service	78.57% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ce23c01
pyamber	90.20% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ce23c01
python	90.76% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ce23c01
workflow-compiling-service	55.14% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from ce23c01

*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 · 🔴 9 worse · ⚪ 6 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 3f87773 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	396	0.242	25,348/32,882/32,882 us	🔴 -7.5% / 🔴 +118.2%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	774	0.473	123,961/161,421/161,421 us	🔴 +18.2% / 🔴 +48.3%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	916	0.559	1,085,420/1,163,065/1,163,065 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +11.5%

Baseline details

Latest main 3f87773 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	396 tuples/sec	428 tuples/sec	770.82 tuples/sec	-7.5%	-48.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.242 MB/s	0.261 MB/s	0.47 MB/s	-7.3%	-48.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	25,348 us	23,858 us	12,723 us	+6.2%	+99.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	32,882 us	31,078 us	15,070 us	+5.8%	+118.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	32,882 us	31,078 us	18,429 us	+5.8%	+78.4%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	774 tuples/sec	822 tuples/sec	973.75 tuples/sec	-5.8%	-20.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.473 MB/s	0.502 MB/s	0.594 MB/s	-5.8%	-20.4%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	123,961 us	121,064 us	102,519 us	+2.4%	+20.9%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	161,421 us	136,615 us	108,855 us	+18.2%	+48.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	161,421 us	136,615 us	117,788 us	+18.2%	+37.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	916 tuples/sec	922 tuples/sec	1,004 tuples/sec	-0.7%	-8.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.559 MB/s	0.563 MB/s	0.613 MB/s	-0.7%	-8.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,085,420 us	1,083,160 us	1,001,930 us	+0.2%	+8.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,163,065 us	1,116,567 us	1,042,923 us	+4.2%	+11.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,163,065 us	1,116,567 us	1,074,893 us	+4.2%	+8.2%

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
0,10,10,64,20,504.94,200,128000,396,0.242,25348.42,32882.03,32882.03
1,100,10,64,20,2583.43,2000,1280000,774,0.473,123960.88,161420.92,161420.92
2,1000,10,64,20,21834.86,20000,12800000,916,0.559,1085419.56,1163065.34,1163065.34

[xuang7]

Thanks for the PR! Overall, this looks good to me and tested locally. One small thing: frontend/junit.xml seems to have been accidentally committed. Could you remove it? Also, we can consider adjusting the order of the sort options. This option might fit better with the other "By ..." options instead of being placed after all the other options.

[roshiiiz]

@xuang7
Thanks for the review! I've updated the PR with those changes:

1. Removed frontend/junit.xml from tracking.
2. Reordered the sort options so "By Execution Time" sits right under "By Create Time".
   Let me know if there's anything else!

[xuang7]

LGTM!

[Yicong-Huang]

Hi @roshiiiz as this is a frontend feature, can you include a gif/screenshot in the PR description? Thanks

[roshiiiz]

Hi @roshiiiz as this is a frontend feature, can you include a gif/screenshot in the PR description? Thanks

@Yicong-Huang Done, Kindly review it

[xuang7]

Hi @roshiiiz, scalafmtCheck failed. Please let me know once the PR is ready to merge. Thanks!

[xuang7]

Hi @roshiiiz, the database change does not relevant to this PR. Could you please remove it?

[roshiiiz]

Hi @roshiiiz, the database change does not relevant to this PR. Could you please remove it?

yes removing it rightnow, it was failing a check

[roshiiiz]

@xuang7 it keeps failing this one check, is it important?