fix(test, computing-unit): restore ComputingUnitManagingServiceSpec compilation after the avatar rename

[eugenegujing]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

ComputingUnitManagingResourceSpec references a field named ownerGoogleAvatar in two assertions, but DashboardWorkflowComputingUnit declares it as ownerAvatar (ComputingUnitManagingResource.scala:162). main therefore fails to compile its test sources:

[error] .../ComputingUnitManagingResourceSpec.scala:179:10: value ownerGoogleAvatar is not a member of
        org.apache.texera.service.resource.ComputingUnitManagingResource.DashboardWorkflowComputingUnit
[error]     info.ownerGoogleAvatar shouldBe "owner-avatar"
[error] .../ComputingUnitManagingResourceSpec.scala:285:13: value ownerGoogleAvatar is not a member of ...
[error]     created.ownerGoogleAvatar shouldBe null
[error] two errors found
[error] (ComputingUnitManagingService / Test / compileIncremental) Compilation failed

This renames the two references. The diff is two lines; no production file is touched and no assertion's meaning changes.

Because Scala test compilation is per module, the impact is wider than two assertions: no test in computing-unit-managing-service has been able to run. ComputingUnitHelpersSpec, AdminComputingUnitResourceSpec, KubernetesClientSpec and ComputingUnitAccessResourceSpec were all taken down with it.

This is merge skew. #7563 (06845321b) renamed the field and correctly updated the two specs that referenced it at the time — AdminComputingUnitResourceSpec and ComputingUnitHelpersSpec, both of which use ownerAvatar on main today. ComputingUnitManagingResourceSpec had no avatar assertions then, so there was nothing to update. #7580 (c7e7362a4) then added them from a branch based before the rename, and its CI ran against that older base. git merge-base --is-ancestor 06845321b c7e7362a4 returns true, so the rename was already on main when #7580 landed.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7634

Introduced by the interaction of #7563 (the ownerGoogleAvatar → ownerAvatar rename) and #7580 (which added the avatar assertions from a pre-rename base).

How was this PR tested?

sbt "ComputingUnitManagingService/Test/compile" fails on main with the two errors above and succeeds on this branch.

sbt "ComputingUnitManagingService/test" on this branch: 116 tests across 8 suites, all passing. None of those 116 could run on main. ComputingUnitManagingResourceSpec itself passes 31/31 — the two assertions were already correct, so nothing about their meaning had to change, only the field name they read.

No other module is affected: the change is confined to one test file in one module and renames a field reference to match an existing declaration. A repo-wide sbt Test/compile across all sixteen aggregated modules succeeds on this branch.

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Opus 5)

[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/v1.2	Not labeled automatically — none of the files this PR modifies exist on this branch (computing-unit-managing-service/src/test/scala/org/apache/texera/service/resource/ComputingUnitManagingResourceSpec.scala). 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/v1.2 by hand if this fix should be backported 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
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan in a comment.

[eugenegujing]

/request-review @aglinxinyuan

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.40%. Comparing base (86dd852) to head (f06f5ba).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #7635      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     89.29%   89.40%   +0.10%     
- Complexity     4359     4375      +16     
============================================
  Files          1177     1177              
  Lines         46831    46831              
  Branches       5224     5224              
============================================
+ Hits          41817    41867      +50     
+ Misses         3269     3217      -52     
- Partials       1745     1747       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	98.62% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 86dd852
amber	85.74% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 86dd852
computing-unit-managing-service	72.46% <ø> (+12.07%)	⬆️
config-service	77.31% <ø> (ø)
file-service	68.90% <ø> (ø)
frontend	90.59% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 86dd852
notebook-migration-service	78.89% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	97.57% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 86dd852
workflow-compiling-service	57.89% <ø> (ø)

*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.