refactor(asf): unify Dropwizard service bootstrap into common/auth

[Ma77Ball]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

• Added ServiceBootstrap in common/auth with three shared helpers: configure (YAML env-var substitution + DefaultScalaModule registration), initDatabase (open the SQL connection pool from StorageConfig), and configFilePath (resolve $TEXERA_HOME/<service>/src/main/resources/<file>).
• Migrated all six Dropwizard services (config, access-control, file, computing-unit-managing, workflow-compiling, notebook-migration) onto ServiceBootstrap, removing the duplicated initialize() / initConnection / main() boilerplate.
• Pointed WorkflowCompilingService at the shared RequestLoggingFilter.register instead of its hand-rolled inline servlet filter, and NotebookMigrationService at the shared AuthFeatures.register instead of its own identical registerAuthFeatures.
• Added jackson-module-scala as a provided dependency of common/auth for ServiceBootstrap's DefaultScalaModule.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Closes: #5982

How was this PR tested?

• New ServiceBootstrapSpec: run sbt -J-Dnet.bytebuddy.experimental=true "Auth/testOnly *ServiceBootstrapSpec", expect it to verify configure wraps the config source provider and registers the Scala module, and that configFilePath returns an absolute path ending in the conventional <service>/src/main/resources/<file> suffix.
• Existing service specs still pass: sbt "ConfigService/testOnly *RunSpec" "AccessControlService/testOnly *RunSpec" "WorkflowCompilingService/testOnly *RunSpec" "ComputingUnitManagingService/testOnly *RunSpec" "NotebookMigrationService/testOnly *RunSpec" plus AuthFeaturesSpec, confirming each service still registers the same resources and auth stack.
• Compiles clean: sbt "Auth/compile" "ConfigService/compile" "AccessControlService/compile" "FileService/compile" "ComputingUnitManagingService/compile" "WorkflowCompilingService/compile" "NotebookMigrationService/compile".
• Note: this dev machine runs JDK 25, which Mockito/ByteBuddy and JaCoCo/ASM do not yet support, so mock-based specs were run with -J-Dnet.bytebuddy.experimental=true and FileServiceRunSpec could not be instrumented locally; all of these run normally on CI's JDK 21.

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

Co-authored with Claude Opus 4.8 in compliance with ASF

[github-actions]

Automated Reviewer Suggestions

Based on the git blame history of the changed files, we recommend the following reviewers:

• Contributors with relevant context: @zyratlo, @eugenegujing
  You can notify them by mentioning @zyratlo, @eugenegujing in a comment.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 29.54545% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 56.96%. Comparing base (1073b22) to head (e715b04).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ache/texera/service/WorkflowCompilingService.scala	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
...g/apache/texera/service/AccessControlService.scala	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
.../texera/service/ComputingUnitManagingService.scala	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️
...ache/texera/service/NotebookMigrationService.scala	16.66%	5 Missing ⚠️
...cala/org/apache/texera/auth/ServiceBootstrap.scala	75.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...cala/org/apache/texera/service/ConfigService.scala	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
.../scala/org/apache/texera/service/FileService.scala	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (29.54%) is below the target coverage (60.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #5983      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     56.86%   56.96%   +0.09%     
+ Complexity     3027     3025       -2     
============================================
  Files          1127     1128       +1     
  Lines         43756    43693      -63     
  Branches       4736     4735       -1     
============================================
+ Hits          24883    24888       +5     
+ Misses        17401    17333      -68     
  Partials       1472     1472              

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	73.68% <0.00%> (+3.68%)	⬆️
agent-service	44.59% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1a58433
amber	58.75% <75.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
config-service	64.15% <0.00%> (+11.84%)	⬆️
file-service	64.43% <0.00%> (+1.62%)	⬆️
frontend	49.97% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️	Carriedforward from 1a58433
notebook-migration-service	82.35% <16.66%> (+3.78%)	⬆️
pyamber	90.20% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1a58433
python	90.76% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from 1a58433
workflow-compiling-service	64.65% <0.00%> (+9.50%)	⬆️

*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 · 🔴 5 worse · ⚪ 10 noise (<±5%) · 0 without baseline

Compared against main 1073b22 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	347	0.212	26,765/47,270/47,270 us	🔴 +44.5% / 🔴 +213.7%
⚪	bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	784	0.478	125,406/141,733/141,733 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +31.7%
⚪	bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	916	0.559	1,089,944/1,124,525/1,124,525 us	⚪ within ±5% / 🔴 +10.4%

Baseline details

Latest main 1073b22 from same runner

config	metric	PR	latest main	7d avg	Δ latest	Δ 7d
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	347 tuples/sec	417 tuples/sec	777.62 tuples/sec	-16.8%	-55.4%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.212 MB/s	0.255 MB/s	0.475 MB/s	-16.9%	-55.3%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p50	26,765 us	23,498 us	12,612 us	+13.9%	+112.2%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p95	47,270 us	32,711 us	15,070 us	+44.5%	+213.7%
bs=10 sw=10 sl=64	p99	47,270 us	32,711 us	18,360 us	+44.5%	+157.5%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	784 tuples/sec	819 tuples/sec	988.31 tuples/sec	-4.3%	-20.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.478 MB/s	0.5 MB/s	0.603 MB/s	-4.4%	-20.8%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p50	125,406 us	121,122 us	101,066 us	+3.5%	+24.1%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p95	141,733 us	147,693 us	107,594 us	-4.0%	+31.7%
bs=100 sw=10 sl=64	p99	141,733 us	147,693 us	115,830 us	-4.0%	+22.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	throughput	916 tuples/sec	911 tuples/sec	1,019 tuples/sec	+0.5%	-10.1%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	MB/s	0.559 MB/s	0.556 MB/s	0.622 MB/s	+0.5%	-10.2%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p50	1,089,944 us	1,096,368 us	986,982 us	-0.6%	+10.4%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p95	1,124,525 us	1,135,091 us	1,028,491 us	-0.9%	+9.3%
bs=1000 sw=10 sl=64	p99	1,124,525 us	1,135,091 us	1,058,493 us	-0.9%	+6.2%

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
0,10,10,64,20,575.78,200,128000,347,0.212,26764.86,47270.30,47270.30
1,100,10,64,20,2551.51,2000,1280000,784,0.478,125405.76,141733.33,141733.33
2,1000,10,64,20,21830.33,20000,12800000,916,0.559,1089944.04,1124524.81,1124524.81