fix(workflow): return 404 for missing workflow type

[VuMartin]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Return 404 Not Found when the workflow type endpoint is requested for a workflow that does not exist. Previously, getWorkflowType dereferenced a null DAO result and returned 500 Internal Server Error.

Before:

After:

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8300

How was this PR tested?

• Ran WorkflowResourceSpec
• Verified GET /api/workflow/type/2147483647 returns 404 instead of 500
• Added regression coverage for a missing workflow type

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

Generated-by: ChatGPT (5.5 mini)

[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	Change detected on this branch — label added; this fix is queued to backport here. Requested review from @mengw15.
✅ release/v1.2	Change detected on this branch — label added; this fix is queued to backport here. Requested review from @xuang7.

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: @yangzhang75, @aglinxinyuan
  You can notify them by mentioning @yangzhang75, @aglinxinyuan in a comment.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 5 worse · ⚪ 10 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 1cbe857 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	400	0.244	23,883/30,589/30,589 us	🔴 +14.2% / 🔴 +87.3%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	915	0.559	106,659/153,905/153,905 us	🔴 +11.5% / 🔴 +39.5%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,106	0.675	895,289/987,773/987,773 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -11.3%

Baseline details

Latest main 1cbe857 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	400 tuples/sec	449 tuples/sec	749.39 tuples/sec	-10.9%	-46.6%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.244 MB/s	0.274 MB/s	0.457 MB/s	-10.9%	-46.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	23,883 us	20,914 us	13,045 us	+14.2%	+83.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	30,589 us	31,021 us	16,328 us	-1.4%	+87.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	30,589 us	31,021 us	19,518 us	-1.4%	+56.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	915 tuples/sec	943 tuples/sec	968.07 tuples/sec	-3.0%	-5.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.559 MB/s	0.576 MB/s	0.591 MB/s	-3.0%	-5.4%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	106,659 us	103,789 us	103,330 us	+2.8%	+3.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	153,905 us	138,069 us	110,305 us	+11.5%	+39.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	153,905 us	138,069 us	121,264 us	+11.5%	+26.9%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,106 tuples/sec	1,103 tuples/sec	998 tuples/sec	+0.3%	+10.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.675 MB/s	0.673 MB/s	0.609 MB/s	+0.3%	+10.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	895,289 us	906,264 us	1,009,354 us	-1.2%	-11.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	987,773 us	967,213 us	1,052,748 us	+2.1%	-6.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	987,773 us	967,213 us	1,081,982 us	+2.1%	-8.7%

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
0,10,10,64,20,500.25,200,128000,400,0.244,23883.48,30589.19,30589.19
1,100,10,64,20,2185.03,2000,1280000,915,0.559,106658.97,153905.31,153905.31
2,1000,10,64,20,18078.44,20000,12800000,1106,0.675,895288.64,987772.82,987772.82

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.06%. Comparing base (1cbe857) to head (f725f38).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8398      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     94.03%   94.06%   +0.03%     
- Complexity     4821     4926     +105     
============================================
  Files          1204     1208       +4     
  Lines         48991    49796     +805     
  Branches       5956     6067     +111     
============================================
+ Hits          46067    46840     +773     
- Misses         1458     1479      +21     
- Partials       1466     1477      +11     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088
amber	90.18% <100.00%> (+0.26%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088
config-service	87.12% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088
file-service	87.91% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088
frontend	96.79% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088
notebook-migration-service	83.57% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088
pyamber	98.47% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 3608088

*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.

[Yicong-Huang]

🔴 1 must-fix · 0 advisory · 1 polish: the guard is correct and complete, and the identical null dereference sits two methods below it.

Correctness (1)

• WorkflowResource.scala:852: retrievePublicWorkflow takes the same unguarded path (must-fix, see inline)

Polish: 1 quick touch-up (see inline comments).

Verification trace

Checked every other fetchOneByWid site in the file: 181, 428, 536, 571 and 610 sit behind an access check or an insert in the same method, so none can reach the dereference. The three fetchOneInto(classOf[String]) lookups (871, 883, 918) return null instead of dereferencing, which Jersey maps to 204 rather than 500. retrievePublicWorkflow at 891 to 897 is the only remaining site with this shape.

[carloea2]

I am working on this one
#8140

[Yicong-Huang]

🟢 2 resolved · 0 open · 0 new (0 new = 0 newly introduced · 0 late catches)

The test name is fixed, and the retrievePublicWorkflow must-fix is withdrawn: you were right to keep it scoped to #8140. Nothing open on this PR.

Verification trace

Both carry-over items were checked against the tree at f725f38, not taken on report. WorkflowResourceSpec.scala:950 now reads it should "throw NotFoundException for a missing workflow type", matching the sibling at 1059, so that thread is resolved. For the scope question I checked #8140 before answering: it is open, changes these same two files, and closes #8139, so the guard is tracked on its own branch. retrievePublicWorkflow is untouched by this PR and already in main, so requiring it here would merge two independently reviewable fixes.

Re-ran the fix-completeness sweep on the unchanged production hunk: every other fetchOneByWid site in this file (181, 428, 536, 571, 610) sits behind an access check or an insert in the same method, and the three fetchOneInto(classOf[String]) lookups (871, 883, 918) return null rather than dereferencing. retrievePublicWorkflow remains the only other site with this shape.