ci: align renovate amber scopes (amber vs pyamber)

[Yicong-Huang]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

.github/renovate.json5 scoped and grouped every amber/** dependency bump as pyamber. But amber/ holds both the Scala engine and the Python (pyamber) worker: amber/build.sbt alone declares ~80 versioned Scala deps. So an amber Scala dependency PR landed a chore(deps, pyamber) commit even though it is not a Python change, and amber sbt minors were grouped into "pyamber minor updates" instead of staying individual like every other sbt minor.

This splits the amber rules by Renovate manager:

• pip_requirements → deps, pyamber (unchanged intent)
• sbt → deps, amber (the directory's own name, not the Python-specific one)

As a side effect amber sbt patches now fall through to the shared sbt patch updates group and amber sbt minors stay individual, matching the config's own stated intent for sbt minors.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7067

How was this PR tested?

• renovate-config-validator passes on the updated config.
• Manually traced each amber manager/update-type through the rules to confirm Scala bumps now scope amber and Python bumps stay pyamber.

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Opus 4.8)

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

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

• No candidates found from git blame history.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 79.26%. Comparing base (02ae12b) to head (b58a631).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7068      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     79.27%   79.26%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     3787     3784       -3     
============================================
  Files          1160     1160              
  Lines         46124    46124              
  Branches       5114     5114              
============================================
- Hits          36563    36560       -3     
  Misses         7942     7942              
- Partials       1619     1622       +3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	76.76% <ø> (ø)
amber	72.59% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
computing-unit-managing-service	20.49% <ø> (ø)
config-service	66.66% <ø> (ø)
file-service	67.21% <ø> (ø)
frontend	83.08% <ø> (ø)
notebook-migration-service	78.94% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	96.34% <ø> (ø)
workflow-compiling-service	26.31% <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

🟢 0 better · 🔴 4 worse · ⚪ 11 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 02ae12b 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	440	0.269	21,749/29,129/29,129 us	🔴 -6.6% / 🔴 +84.7%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	970	0.592	104,244/122,616/122,616 us	🔴 +6.6% / 🔴 +14.2%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,108	0.677	898,877/940,058/940,058 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -10.8%

Baseline details

Latest main 02ae12b from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	440 tuples/sec	471 tuples/sec	786.12 tuples/sec	-6.6%	-44.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.269 MB/s	0.287 MB/s	0.48 MB/s	-6.3%	-43.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	21,749 us	21,362 us	12,305 us	+1.8%	+76.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	29,129 us	28,942 us	15,774 us	+0.6%	+84.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	29,129 us	28,942 us	18,978 us	+0.6%	+53.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	970 tuples/sec	985 tuples/sec	999.71 tuples/sec	-1.5%	-3.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.592 MB/s	0.601 MB/s	0.61 MB/s	-1.5%	-3.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	104,244 us	103,763 us	100,616 us	+0.5%	+3.6%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	122,616 us	115,022 us	107,356 us	+6.6%	+14.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	122,616 us	115,022 us	113,255 us	+6.6%	+8.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,108 tuples/sec	1,129 tuples/sec	1,031 tuples/sec	-1.9%	+7.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.677 MB/s	0.689 MB/s	0.63 MB/s	-1.7%	+7.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	898,877 us	879,276 us	980,328 us	+2.2%	-8.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	940,058 us	967,007 us	1,027,528 us	-2.8%	-8.5%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	940,058 us	967,007 us	1,054,298 us	-2.8%	-10.8%

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
0,10,10,64,20,454.05,200,128000,440,0.269,21749.07,29129.15,29129.15
1,100,10,64,20,2061.76,2000,1280000,970,0.592,104243.67,122615.52,122615.52
2,1000,10,64,20,18043.85,20000,12800000,1108,0.677,898877.47,940058.17,940058.17