Fixed getting values from extra__ keys in airflow con

[glebkrapivin]

Description

Fixes an issue #913 where in airflow 2.5.3 (and maybe other versions) keyfile_json could not be parsed from the airflow connection, because of the way it was referring to the wrong key in the extra dict in the connection.

I also wrote unit tests - logically i think it might be a better idea to put them in the tests for base class, but i wanted to adhere to the overall logic.

Pre-commit fails with get_dbt_value being to complex. Personally i would ignore that as i think branching for different extras increases readability in this case, but i am up for a discussion

Related Issue(s)

Closes #913

Breaking Change?

No, as it was not handled before

Checklist

• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (if required)
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for sunny-pastelito-5ecb04 canceled.

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	55bdb05
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/sunny-pastelito-5ecb04/deploys/662e7bc8dbd3a200087e7772

[tatiana]

Thanks for fixing this, @glebkrapivin !

It seems one of the pre-commit checks is failing, could you fix it, please? We'll aim to release this as part of 1.4

ruff..........................................................................Failed
- hook id: ruff
- exit code: 1

cosmos/profiles/base.py:244:9: C901 `get_dbt_value` is too complex (9 > 8)
Found 1 error.

[glebkrapivin]

Thanks for fixing this, @glebkrapivin !

It seems one of the pre-commit checks is failing, could you fix it, please? We'll aim to release this as part of 1.4

ruff..........................................................................Failed
- hook id: ruff
- exit code: 1

cosmos/profiles/base.py:244:9: C901 `get_dbt_value` is too complex (9 > 8)
Found 1 error.

@tatiana
Personally i would ignore that as i think branching for different extras increases readability in this case, but i will think of a way to refactor for it to pass

[tatiana]

Personally i would ignore that as i think branching for different extras increases readability in this case, but i will think of a way to refactor for it to pass

Thanks a lot, @glebkrapivin !

[glebkrapivin]

Personally i would ignore that as i think branching for different extras increases readability in this case, but i will think of a way to refactor for it to pass

Thanks a lot, @glebkrapivin !

@tatiana I've changed a couple of lines, now all the pre-commit checks do pass :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.55%. Comparing base (73a9ba2) to head (55bdb05).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #923   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.54%   95.55%           
=======================================
  Files          57       57           
  Lines        2763     2768    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits         2640     2645    +5     
  Misses        123      123           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[tatiana]

Thank you very much, @glebkrapivin !