chore(amber): remove the empty ExecutionStatusEnum.scala

[aglinxinyuan]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

Deletes ExecutionStatusEnum.scala, an 18-line file that holds the ASF license header and nothing else — no code, and no reference to the name anywhere in the tree. Pure deletion, no behaviour change: −18 lines, none of them compiled. Flagged as a follow-up in the #8396 review.

History

Introduced by	#1351 (2021-10-27) — "Detach workflow execution from frontend with reconnection support" added the sealed trait ExecutionStatusEnum and its Jackson serializer/deserializer, carried by WorkflowStateEvent; #1423 (2022-02-01) reshaped it into a sealed abstract class carrying a name and a DB status code
Emptied by	#1387 (2022-02-10) — "Web server workflow-related state refactoring" moved execution state to the protobuf WorkflowAggregatedState, changed WorkflowStateEvent.state to a String, and left this file as a single blank line instead of deleting it. #3415 (2025-05-03) later stamped the ASF header onto the empty file

Empty for about four and a half years. Like #8396, a file with zero compiled lines.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #8434

How was this PR tested?

No tests to change — the file had no code and no spec referenced it.

Locally, from the repo root with Java 17:

• sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/Test/compile" — success.
• sbt "WorkflowExecutionService/scalafmtCheckAll" "WorkflowExecutionService/scalafixAll --check" — clean.

Verification, re-runnable by a reviewer:

git grep -n ExecutionStatusEnum          # nothing, on main as well — the name survives only as the filename
git ls-files | grep ExecutionStatusEnum  # the one file on main; gone on this branch

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Fable 5.1)

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has reached their quota limit.

[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.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 2 better · 🔴 9 worse · ⚪ 4 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main dcb25ef 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	519	0.317	18,069/25,847/25,847 us	🔴 +10.2% / 🔴 +58.3%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	1,171	0.715	82,337/123,910/123,910 us	🔴 +41.2% / 🟢 +21.0%
🔴	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,380	0.843	722,582/864,840/864,840 us	🔴 +17.6% / 🟢 +38.4%

Baseline details

Latest main dcb25ef from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	519 tuples/sec	558 tuples/sec	749.39 tuples/sec	-7.0%	-30.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.317 MB/s	0.341 MB/s	0.457 MB/s	-7.0%	-30.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	18,069 us	16,404 us	13,045 us	+10.2%	+38.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	25,847 us	28,050 us	16,328 us	-7.9%	+58.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	25,847 us	28,050 us	19,518 us	-7.9%	+32.4%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,171 tuples/sec	1,245 tuples/sec	968.07 tuples/sec	-5.9%	+21.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.715 MB/s	0.76 MB/s	0.591 MB/s	-5.9%	+21.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	82,337 us	80,746 us	103,330 us	+2.0%	-20.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	123,910 us	87,736 us	110,305 us	+41.2%	+12.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	123,910 us	87,736 us	121,264 us	+41.2%	+2.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,380 tuples/sec	1,440 tuples/sec	998 tuples/sec	-4.2%	+38.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.843 MB/s	0.879 MB/s	0.609 MB/s	-4.1%	+38.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	722,582 us	694,704 us	1,009,354 us	+4.0%	-28.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	864,840 us	735,443 us	1,052,748 us	+17.6%	-17.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	864,840 us	735,443 us	1,081,982 us	+17.6%	-20.1%

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
0,10,10,64,20,385.23,200,128000,519,0.317,18068.73,25846.69,25846.69
1,100,10,64,20,1708.37,2000,1280000,1171,0.715,82336.58,123909.53,123909.53
2,1000,10,64,20,14488.82,20000,12800000,1380,0.843,722581.86,864839.99,864839.99

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.03%. Comparing base (dcb25ef) to head (ae4b4a4).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #8435      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     94.03%   94.03%   -0.01%     
+ Complexity     4821     4819       -2     
============================================
  Files          1207     1207              
  Lines         49109    49109              
  Branches       5963     5963              
============================================
- Hits          46180    46178       -2     
  Misses         1461     1461              
- Partials       1468     1470       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	81.00% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef
agent-service	99.32% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef
amber	89.90% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
computing-unit-managing-service	73.67% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef
config-service	87.12% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef
file-service	87.91% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef
frontend	96.79% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef
notebook-migration-service	83.57% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef
pyamber	98.47% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef
workflow-compiling-service	77.19% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from dcb25ef

*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.