refactor(config): drop amber prefix from common config package

[Ma77Ball]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

• Unified all config objects in common/config under one package, org.apache.texera.common.config. This merges the two former packages (org.apache.texera.config and org.apache.texera.amber.config) so the namespace reflects that they live in common and are shared by both web and engine, rather than implying they belong to amber.
• Moved the module directory to .../org/apache/texera/common/config/ and rewrote all references across the repo (74 files) to the new package.
• Pure rename and import rewrite, no behavior change.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes: #5668

How was this PR tested?

• sbt "Config/compile" "ConfigService/compile" "ComputingUnitManagingService/compile" "WorkflowCompilingService/compile" "WorkflowCore/compile" all report [success].
• No behavior changed, so existing test suites should pass unchanged.

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

Co-authored with Claude Opus 4.8 in compliance with ASF

[Yicong-Huang]

Thanks! Please see inline comments. We still want to prevent importing web service related packages from amber. for common package, it is an exception place to put packages needed both on web and engine (amber) side.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 52.64%. Comparing base (aca41f3) to head (4033be9).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #5672      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     52.85%   52.64%   -0.21%     
- Complexity     2620     2621       +1     
============================================
  Files          1090     1085       -5     
  Lines         42176    41850     -326     
  Branches       4531     4481      -50     
============================================
- Hits          22293    22033     -260     
+ Misses        18573    18535      -38     
+ Partials       1310     1282      -28     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	71.42% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	34.36% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 5d74b61
amber	52.88% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	1.65% <ø> (ø)
config-service	56.71% <ø> (ø)
file-service	57.06% <ø> (ø)
frontend	47.33% <ø> (-0.60%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 5d74b61
pyamber	90.70% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from 5d74b61
python	90.74% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 5d74b61
workflow-compiling-service	58.69% <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

🟢 2 better · 🔴 1 worse · ⚪ 12 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main aca41f3 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	462	0.282	21,569/26,121/26,121 us	🟢 -28.8% / 🟢 -25.3%
🔴	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	940	0.574	105,715/121,910/121,910 us	🔴 +5.9% / 🟢 -12.8%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	1,139	0.695	877,821/916,912/916,912 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🟢 -10.4%

Baseline details

Latest main aca41f3 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	462 tuples/sec	441 tuples/sec	410.82 tuples/sec	+4.8%	+12.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.282 MB/s	0.269 MB/s	0.251 MB/s	+4.8%	+12.5%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	21,569 us	21,788 us	23,785 us	-1.0%	-9.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	26,121 us	36,679 us	34,980 us	-28.8%	-25.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	26,121 us	36,679 us	34,980 us	-28.8%	-25.3%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	940 tuples/sec	986 tuples/sec	891.94 tuples/sec	-4.7%	+5.4%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.574 MB/s	0.602 MB/s	0.544 MB/s	-4.7%	+5.4%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	105,715 us	99,787 us	112,277 us	+5.9%	-5.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	121,910 us	118,562 us	139,802 us	+2.8%	-12.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	121,910 us	118,562 us	139,802 us	+2.8%	-12.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	1,139 tuples/sec	1,122 tuples/sec	1,041 tuples/sec	+1.5%	+9.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.695 MB/s	0.685 MB/s	0.635 MB/s	+1.5%	+9.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	877,821 us	893,930 us	972,714 us	-1.8%	-9.8%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	916,912 us	952,111 us	1,023,057 us	-3.7%	-10.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	916,912 us	952,111 us	1,023,057 us	-3.7%	-10.4%

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
0,10,10,64,20,433.08,200,128000,462,0.282,21568.96,26121.21,26121.21
1,100,10,64,20,2126.94,2000,1280000,940,0.574,105714.97,121909.83,121909.83
2,1000,10,64,20,17552.29,20000,12800000,1139,0.695,877821.17,916912.33,916912.33

[Yicong-Huang]

LGTM, thanks