feat(pyamber): support Python UDF UI parameters

[carloea2]

What changes were proposed in this PR?

This PR adds Python runtime support for Python UDF UI parameters.

It introduces:

Area	Change
PyTexera runtime API	Adds self.UiParameter(...) support on Python UDF operator base classes.
Runtime injection bridge	Adds the _texera_injected_ui_parameters base hook that the Scala injector overrides.
Typed parameter parsing	Converts injected UI parameter values into Python values using AttributeType.
PyTexera exports	Exports Dict, Any, and AttributeType through from pytexera import *, so generated code from the Scala injector loads correctly.
Attribute type compatibility	Adds Python enum aliases for AttributeType.INTEGER and AttributeType.BOOLEAN, matching the frontend parser’s accepted tokens.
Follow-up cleanup from PR #5141	Removes the temporary generated-code comment that described this runtime PR as a future dependency.
Test coverage	Adds PyAmber tests for injected values, parsing, duplicate declarations, unsupported types, enum aliases, and instance-local state.

This PR is stacked after the merged frontend foundation PR #5043 and Scala backend injection PR #5141. It does not wire UI parameters into operator execution end to end; that integration is handled by the next PR in the stack.

Any related issues, documentation, discussions?

Part of the Python UDF UI parameter feature split from feat/ui-parameter.

Related tracking issue / stack: #5044

Stack order:

1. Frontend UI parameter building blocks: feat(frontend): add Python UDF UI parameter form support #5043
2. Scala backend injection model: feat(workflow-operator): add Python UDF UI parameter injection model #5141
3. Python runtime support: this PR
4. End-to-end integration

How was this PR tested?

Commands run:

cd amber
ruff check src/main/python/core/models/schema/attribute_type.py src/main/python/pytexera/udf/udf_operator.py src/test/python/pytexera/udf/test_udf_operator.py
pytest src/test/python/pytexera/udf/test_udf_operator.py -q
pytest src/test/python/pytexera/udf -q

[carloea2]

@Xiao-zhen-Liu could you review it?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 90.00000% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 53.80%. Comparing base (cd60535) to head (d7fb00c).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
amber/src/main/python/pytexera/udf/udf_operator.py	89.18%	8 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #5603      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     52.42%   53.80%   +1.37%     
+ Complexity     2481     1424    -1057     
============================================
  Files          1070      802     -268     
  Lines         41359    33333    -8026     
  Branches       4441     3345    -1096     
============================================
- Hits          21682    17934    -3748     
+ Misses        18406    14533    -3873     
+ Partials       1271      866     -405     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
access-control-service	64.61% <ø> (ø)
agent-service	33.76% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from cd60535
amber	59.76% <100.00%> (+6.47%)	⬆️
computing-unit-managing-service	1.65% <ø> (ø)
config-service	56.06% <ø> (ø)
file-service	38.21% <ø> (ø)
frontend	47.03% <ø> (ø)		Carriedforward from cd60535
pyamber	90.69% <89.87%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
python	90.74% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from cd60535
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.