feat(frontend): add sort by execution time with nulls last

[roshiiiz]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

This PR adds the ability to sort workflows by "Execution Time" on the main Dashboard, and ensures that workflows which have never been executed (where execution time is null) are pushed to the bottom of the list rather than awkwardly floating at the top.

Changes made:

• Added "Execution time" as an option in the frontend sort dropdown menu (sort-method.ts, sort-button.component).
• Updated UnifiedResourceSchema.scala in the backend to include resourceExecutionTimeField.
• Updated DashboardResource.scala and WorkflowSearchQueryBuilder.scala to handle the new sort condition, specifically appending .nullsLast() so that un-executed workflows drop to the bottom of the list.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Issue#3406

How was this PR tested?

Tested manually in a local development environment:

1. Booted the local dashboard and backend via sbt.
2. Created a new, unexecuted "Untitled Workflow".
3. Navigated to the Dashboard and sorted by "Execution Time".
4. Verified that the unexecuted workflow correctly fell to the bottom of the list instead of appearing at the top.

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

Generated-by: Antigravity (DeepMind)

[github-actions]

👋 Thanks for your first contribution to Texera, @roshiiiz!

If you're looking for a good place to start, browse issues labeled starter-task; they're scoped to be approachable for newcomers.

You can drive common housekeeping yourself by commenting one of these commands on its own line:

• Issues. Comment /take to assign an open issue to yourself, or /untake to release it. You can find unclaimed work with the search filter is:issue is:open no:assignee.
• Sub-issues. To link issues into a parent/child hierarchy, comment /sub-issue #5166 #5222 on the parent to attach those children (or /unsub-issue #5166 #5222 to detach them). From a child issue, comment /parent-issue #5166 to set its parent, or /unparent-issue to clear it (the current parent is detected automatically). References may be written as #5166 or as a bare 5166; cross-repository references are not supported.
• Pull requests (author only). Comment /request-review @user to request a review from someone, or /unrequest-review @user to withdraw that request.

Each command must match exactly: /take this will not work, only /take does. For the full contribution flow, see CONTRIBUTING.md.

[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, @xuang7, @carloea2
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan, @xuang7, @carloea2 in a comment.

[roshiiiz]

/request-review @xuang7

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 53.92%. Comparing base (a0154d5) to head (768ae27).
⚠️ Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #5890      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     54.42%   53.92%   -0.50%     
+ Complexity     2896     2753     -143     
============================================
  Files          1107     1103       -4     
  Lines         42768    42638     -130     
  Branches       4599     4588      -11     
============================================
- Hits          23277    22994     -283     
- Misses        18134    18313     +179     
+ Partials       1357     1331      -26     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.44% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 5882434
agent-service	34.36% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 5882434
amber	55.18% <ø> (-1.16%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 5882434
computing-unit-managing-service	1.65% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 5882434
config-service	56.06% <ø> (-1.30%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 5882434
file-service	57.36% <ø> (-1.24%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 5882434
frontend	48.30% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
pyamber	90.09% <ø> (-0.11%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 5882434
python	90.76% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 5882434
workflow-compiling-service	58.69% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 5882434

*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 · 🔴 2 worse · ⚪ 11 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main a0154d5 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	366	0.223	24,593/44,440/44,440 us	🔴 +7.7% / 🔴 +27.0%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	775	0.473	131,227/147,240/147,240 us	🟢 -11.1% / 🔴 +16.9%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	925	0.565	1,081,746/1,145,592/1,145,592 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +12.0%

Baseline details

Latest main a0154d5 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	366 tuples/sec	374 tuples/sec	410.82 tuples/sec	-2.1%	-10.9%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.223 MB/s	0.228 MB/s	0.251 MB/s	-2.2%	-11.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	24,593 us	22,830 us	23,785 us	+7.7%	+3.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	44,440 us	43,011 us	34,980 us	+3.3%	+27.0%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	44,440 us	43,011 us	34,980 us	+3.3%	+27.0%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	775 tuples/sec	809 tuples/sec	891.94 tuples/sec	-4.2%	-13.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.473 MB/s	0.494 MB/s	0.544 MB/s	-4.3%	-13.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	131,227 us	119,611 us	112,277 us	+9.7%	+16.9%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	147,240 us	165,671 us	139,802 us	-11.1%	+5.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	147,240 us	165,671 us	139,802 us	-11.1%	+5.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	925 tuples/sec	921 tuples/sec	1,041 tuples/sec	+0.4%	-11.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.565 MB/s	0.562 MB/s	0.635 MB/s	+0.5%	-11.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,081,746 us	1,085,044 us	972,714 us	-0.3%	+11.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,145,592 us	1,128,883 us	1,023,057 us	+1.5%	+12.0%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,145,592 us	1,128,883 us	1,023,057 us	+1.5%	+12.0%

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
0,10,10,64,20,547.18,200,128000,366,0.223,24593.08,44440.10,44440.10
1,100,10,64,20,2581.97,2000,1280000,775,0.473,131227.23,147240.11,147240.11
2,1000,10,64,20,21617.33,20000,12800000,925,0.565,1081746.47,1145592.12,1145592.12

[xuang7]

Thanks for the PR! Overall, this looks good to me and tested locally. One small thing: frontend/junit.xml seems to have been accidentally committed. Could you remove it? Also, we can consider adjusting the order of the sort options. This option might fit better with the other "By ..." options instead of being placed after all the other options.

[roshiiiz]

@xuang7
Thanks for the review! I've updated the PR with those changes:

1. Removed frontend/junit.xml from tracking.
2. Reordered the sort options so "By Execution Time" sits right under "By Create Time".
   Let me know if there's anything else!

[xuang7]

LGTM!