feat(operator-demo-video): add the operator drag-and-connect controller

[xuang7]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

This PR adds the controller that puts an operator on the canvas, the step every demo builds around.

Changes:

• OperatorControllerBuilder.insertViaDrag: locates the operator in the left panel by its metadata group hierarchy (falling back to the search box), drags it onto the canvas, and wires it up. Wiring follows the operator's port topology: source operators connect nothing, single-input operators connect to the anchor, and two-input operators pull a second edge from a given upstream port into a given input port.
• OperatorGroups: flattens the operator group tree into name -> path, shared metadata used to walk the nested group panels.
• Adds the module's dependency on the operator-metadata modules, with the jackson overrides that keep Playwright's transitive jackson on the repo-wide version.
• Extends Utils (canvas-geometry helpers and a shared name normalizer) and the timing constants the controller waits on.
• Four data-testid hooks (left-panel Operators button, operator search input, per-operator list items operator-item-<type>, and the property-panel title the controller waits on after a drop), each covered by a guard test in the component's existing spec.

demo:

bar-chart_demo.webm

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes #7521
Depends on #7600.

How was this PR tested?

No behavior change to any existing module. sbt DemoVideoGenerator/compile, scalafmtCheck, and scalafix --check all pass; the three touched component specs (65 tests, including the new guard tests) pass. The drag-and-connect flow was exercised against a local deployment across all three port topologies (source, single-input, two-input join).

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

Generated-by: Claude Code (Claude Fable 5)

[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, @Neilk1021, @mengw15
  You can notify them by mentioning @aglinxinyuan, @Neilk1021, @mengw15 in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 89.66%. Comparing base (12169c2) to head (658512c).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #7641   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     89.65%   89.66%           
+ Complexity     4397     4396    -1     
=========================================
  Files          1177     1177           
  Lines         46996    46947   -49     
  Branches       5268     5260    -8     
=========================================
- Hits          42136    42096   -40     
  Misses         3094     3094           
+ Partials       1766     1757    -9     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	70.00% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	98.62% <ø> (ø)
amber	86.38% <ø> (+0.03%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 4afe8d4
computing-unit-managing-service	72.46% <ø> (ø)
config-service	77.31% <ø> (ø)
file-service	68.90% <ø> (ø)
frontend	90.67% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
notebook-migration-service	78.89% <ø> (ø)
pyamber	97.52% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️
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.

[github-actions]

⚠️ Benchmark changes need a look

🟢 0 better · 🔴 7 worse · ⚪ 8 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 12169c2 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	356	0.217	27,605/35,107/35,107 us	🔴 +17.0% / 🔴 +116.7%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	769	0.47	127,381/160,450/160,450 us	🔴 +16.8% / 🔴 +49.1%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	905	0.552	1,108,489/1,144,482/1,144,482 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 -12.2%

Baseline details

Latest main 12169c2 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	356 tuples/sec	401 tuples/sec	774.89 tuples/sec	-11.2%	-54.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.217 MB/s	0.245 MB/s	0.473 MB/s	-11.4%	-54.1%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	27,605 us	23,596 us	12,738 us	+17.0%	+116.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	35,107 us	36,603 us	16,348 us	-4.1%	+114.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	35,107 us	36,603 us	18,848 us	-4.1%	+86.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	769 tuples/sec	812 tuples/sec	1,005 tuples/sec	-5.3%	-23.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.47 MB/s	0.495 MB/s	0.613 MB/s	-5.1%	-23.4%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	127,381 us	123,434 us	100,970 us	+3.2%	+26.2%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	160,450 us	137,386 us	107,605 us	+16.8%	+49.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	160,450 us	137,386 us	116,429 us	+16.8%	+37.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	905 tuples/sec	907 tuples/sec	1,030 tuples/sec	-0.2%	-12.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.552 MB/s	0.554 MB/s	0.629 MB/s	-0.4%	-12.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,108,489 us	1,106,932 us	991,433 us	+0.1%	+11.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,144,482 us	1,157,207 us	1,036,668 us	-1.1%	+10.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,144,482 us	1,157,207 us	1,070,470 us	-1.1%	+6.9%

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
0,10,10,64,20,561.80,200,128000,356,0.217,27604.88,35106.63,35106.63
1,100,10,64,20,2599.28,2000,1280000,769,0.470,127381.30,160450.49,160450.49
2,1000,10,64,20,22097.42,20000,12800000,905,0.552,1108489.17,1144482.34,1144482.34

[xuang7]

Could you take a look when you're available? Thanks! @carloea2

[carloea2]

The new node lookup can select an older node when the workflow already has the same operator type. Please use the node added after beforeCount. Also, alreadyConnected can never be true because expectedLinkCount is the current count plus one. Please check the target port instead.