feat(pyamber): clean up reassigned channels

[carloea2]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Remove a channel from its previous input port before registering it with another port. This keeps the forward mapping and each port's channel set consistent for port-aligned control messages.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8227

How was this PR tested?

python -c "import sys,pytest; sys.path[:0]=[worktree amber source, main amber source]; raise SystemExit(pytest.main(['amber/src/test/python/core/architecture/packaging/test_input_manager.py','amber/src/test/python/core/architecture/managers/test_embedded_control_message_manager.py','amber/src/test/python/core/architecture/handlers/control/test_add_input_channel_handler.py','-q','-p','no:cacheprovider']))"
40 passed

ruff check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python
All checks passed

ruff format --check amber/src/main/python amber/src/test/python
213 files already formatted

A direct post-fix probe confirmed both mapping directions agree:

mapped_port=1
old_port_contains_channel=False
new_port_contains_channel=True
old_port_channel_count=0

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

Generated-by: Codex

[github-actions]

Backport auto-label report

This fix: PR was checked against each actively-supported release branch. release/* labels drive the post-merge backport, so add or remove one to change where this fix lands.

Release branch	Analysis
⚠️ release/v1.3	Not labeled automatically — none of the files this PR modifies exist on this branch (amber/src/main/python/core/architecture/packaging/input_manager.py, amber/src/test/python/core/architecture/packaging/test_input_manager.py). The fix may target code that isn't on this release, or the files were moved/renamed after the branch was cut. Please check and add release/v1.3 by hand if this fix should be backported here.
✅ release/v1.2	Already labeled — this fix is queued to backport here.

Auto-label run.

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

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.94%. Comparing base (70c2114) to head (e400d5a).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #8228   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     93.94%   93.94%           
  Complexity     4759     4759           
=========================================
  Files          1185     1185           
  Lines         48069    48072    +3     
  Branches       5359     5359           
=========================================
+ Hits          45159    45162    +3     
  Misses         1480     1480           
  Partials       1430     1430           

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
amber	89.99% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
config-service	86.86% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
file-service	87.91% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
frontend	96.49% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
notebook-migration-service	79.31% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114
pyamber	98.87% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 70c2114

*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

🟢 2 better · 🔴 7 worse · ⚪ 6 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 70c2114 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	543	0.332	17,913/24,095/24,095 us	🔴 +25.5% / 🔴 +54.7%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	1,209	0.738	79,438/106,672/106,672 us	🔴 +5.4% / 🟢 -21.1%
🔴	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,378	0.841	728,136/796,193/796,193 us	🔴 +6.6% / 🟢 +32.2%

Baseline details

Latest main 70c2114 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	543 tuples/sec	596 tuples/sec	787.98 tuples/sec	-8.9%	-31.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.332 MB/s	0.364 MB/s	0.481 MB/s	-8.8%	-31.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	17,913 us	14,273 us	12,593 us	+25.5%	+42.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	24,095 us	28,544 us	15,579 us	-15.6%	+54.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	24,095 us	28,544 us	18,786 us	-15.6%	+28.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,209 tuples/sec	1,229 tuples/sec	1,008 tuples/sec	-1.6%	+20.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.738 MB/s	0.75 MB/s	0.615 MB/s	-1.6%	+20.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	79,438 us	79,848 us	100,701 us	-0.5%	-21.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	106,672 us	101,180 us	107,244 us	+5.4%	-0.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	106,672 us	101,180 us	116,122 us	+5.4%	-8.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,378 tuples/sec	1,418 tuples/sec	1,042 tuples/sec	-2.8%	+32.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.841 MB/s	0.866 MB/s	0.636 MB/s	-2.9%	+32.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	728,136 us	705,778 us	981,959 us	+3.2%	-25.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	796,193 us	746,950 us	1,023,080 us	+6.6%	-22.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	796,193 us	746,950 us	1,051,697 us	+6.6%	-24.3%

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
0,10,10,64,20,368.03,200,128000,543,0.332,17913.00,24094.65,24094.65
1,100,10,64,20,1654.35,2000,1280000,1209,0.738,79438.13,106671.63,106671.63
2,1000,10,64,20,14512.80,20000,12800000,1378,0.841,728135.84,796192.72,796192.72

[Yicong-Huang]

I am converting this PR to a draft: please follow our PR template and mark it ready for review.

[carloea2]

The description now follows the current template, and this is ready for review.