Skip to content

refactor(amber): rename execution coordinators to managers#6123

Merged
Yicong-Huang merged 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
Yicong-Huang:refactor/execution-coordinators-to-managers
Jul 5, 2026
Merged

refactor(amber): rename execution coordinators to managers#6123
Yicong-Huang merged 1 commit into
apache:mainfrom
Yicong-Huang:refactor/execution-coordinators-to-managers

Conversation

@Yicong-Huang

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Pure mechanical rename of the two region-scheduling classes, freeing the "Coordinator" name for the upcoming Controller → Coordinator rename (#6122):

Before After
WorkflowExecutionCoordinator WorkflowExecutionManager
RegionExecutionCoordinator RegionExecutionManager
RegionCoordinatorTestSupport RegionExecutionManagerTestSupport

The Manager suffix mirrors the WorkflowExecution / RegionExecution state objects each class owns and drives, following existing precedent (GlobalReplayManager, OutputManager). Variables (workflowExecutionCoordinator, regionExecutionCoordinators, unfinishedRegionCoordinators, …), comments (including two RegionExecutionCoordintor typos), and cross-references in Python comments were updated together. Files moved with git mv; no behavior change.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #6121. Prerequisite for #6122.

How was this PR tested?

Refactor with no behavior change — the existing specs were renamed along with the classes and stay green with no assertion edits:

sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/testOnly org.apache.texera.amber.engine.architecture.scheduling.WorkflowExecutionManagerSpec org.apache.texera.amber.engine.architecture.scheduling.RegionExecutionManagerSpec"

grep -riE 'ExecutionCoordinator|RegionCoordinator|Coordintor' over the repo returns no matches after the rename.

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Fable 5)

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

  • Contributors with relevant context: @Ma77Ball, @aglinxinyuan, @kunwp1
    You can notify them by mentioning @Ma77Ball, @aglinxinyuan, @kunwp1 in a comment.

@codecov-commenter

codecov-commenter commented Jul 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 81.81818% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 59.13%. Comparing base (908a61f) to head (b6abd55).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
.../promisehandlers/JumpToOperatorRegionHandler.scala 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
...chitecture/scheduling/RegionExecutionManager.scala 75.00% 0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...itecture/scheduling/WorkflowExecutionManager.scala 87.50% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #6123   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     59.12%   59.13%           
- Complexity     3197     3201    +4     
=========================================
  Files          1132     1132           
  Lines         43681    43681           
  Branches       4734     4734           
=========================================
+ Hits          25828    25831    +3     
+ Misses        16419    16418    -1     
+ Partials       1434     1432    -2     
Flag Coverage Δ *Carryforward flag
access-control-service 70.00% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 908a61f
agent-service 44.59% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 908a61f
amber 63.11% <81.81%> (+0.02%) ⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service 0.00% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 908a61f
config-service 52.30% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 908a61f
file-service 62.81% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 908a61f
frontend 51.37% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 908a61f
notebook-migration-service 78.57% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 908a61f
pyamber 91.14% <ø> (-0.05%) ⬇️
workflow-compiling-service 55.14% <ø> (ø) Carriedforward from 908a61f

*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

github-actions Bot commented Jul 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 7 worse · ⚪ 8 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 6de8a48 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=64 408 0.249 24,639/34,210/34,210 us 🔴 +22.9% / 🔴 +125.9%
🔴 bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 849 0.518 116,093/138,370/138,370 us 🔴 +8.6% / 🔴 +28.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 956 0.584 1,047,747/1,101,732/1,101,732 us ⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +7.1%
Baseline details

Latest main 6de8a48 from same runner

config metric PR latest main 7d avg Δ latest Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 408 tuples/sec 460 tuples/sec 776.36 tuples/sec -11.3% -47.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.249 MB/s 0.281 MB/s 0.474 MB/s -11.4% -47.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p50 24,639 us 20,041 us 12,636 us +22.9% +95.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p95 34,210 us 30,043 us 15,143 us +13.9% +125.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64 p99 34,210 us 30,043 us 18,954 us +13.9% +80.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 849 tuples/sec 879 tuples/sec 985.33 tuples/sec -3.4% -13.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.518 MB/s 0.536 MB/s 0.601 MB/s -3.4% -13.9%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p50 116,093 us 112,498 us 101,671 us +3.2% +14.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p95 138,370 us 127,362 us 107,939 us +8.6% +28.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64 p99 138,370 us 127,362 us 113,798 us +8.6% +21.6%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 throughput 956 tuples/sec 957 tuples/sec 1,016 tuples/sec -0.1% -5.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 MB/s 0.584 MB/s 0.584 MB/s 0.62 MB/s 0.0% -5.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p50 1,047,747 us 1,040,376 us 989,693 us +0.7% +5.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p95 1,101,732 us 1,083,800 us 1,028,327 us +1.7% +7.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64 p99 1,101,732 us 1,083,800 us 1,059,969 us +1.7% +3.9%
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
0,10,10,64,20,490.04,200,128000,408,0.249,24638.77,34209.88,34209.88
1,100,10,64,20,2354.36,2000,1280000,849,0.518,116092.59,138369.81,138369.81
2,1000,10,64,20,20913.13,20000,12800000,956,0.584,1047746.58,1101731.77,1101731.77

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@Yicong-Huang Yicong-Huang force-pushed the refactor/execution-coordinators-to-managers branch from cfc25a3 to b6abd55 Compare July 5, 2026 00:52
@Yicong-Huang Yicong-Huang enabled auto-merge July 5, 2026 01:15
@Yicong-Huang Yicong-Huang added this pull request to the merge queue Jul 5, 2026
Merged via the queue into apache:main with commit 3084881 Jul 5, 2026
34 of 36 checks passed
@Yicong-Huang Yicong-Huang deleted the refactor/execution-coordinators-to-managers branch July 5, 2026 01:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Rename workflow/region ExecutionCoordinators to ExecutionManagers

3 participants