fix(core): relax pathspec upper bound version limitation

[rzjfr]

resolves #9372

Problem

Starting from dbt-core 1.2.6 this dependency has been added: pathspec>=0.9,<0.12 which conflicts with latest version of pathspec (0.12.1). I can't find any reason specifically for <0.12. It seems to be consequence of dependebot upgrading more restrictive pathspec~=0.9 here and then later here

Solution

I can't find any reason to restrict pathspec <0.12. I couldn't find any major change that can break anything related to this package in pathspec change log. Here I just removed the upper bound. If we want to be for some reason very conservative about this particular package we can change it either to <0.13 or <1.

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me
• I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
• This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
• This PR has no interface changes (e.g. macros, cli, logs, json artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX
• This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions

[cla-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, please reach out through a comment on this PR.

CLA has not been signed by users: @rzjfr

[github-actions]

Thank you for your pull request! We could not find a changelog entry for this change. For details on how to document a change, see the contributing guide.

[dbeatty10]

Thanks for opening @rzjfr

Could you do the following?

1. Sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA)
2. Add a changelog entry via changie new (so that it will show in the changelog under the Dependencies section)

[rzjfr]

Thanks for opening @rzjfr

Could you do the following?

1. Sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA)

2. Add a changelog entry via `changie new` (so that it will show in the changelog under the [Dependencies](https://github.com/dbt-labs/dbt-core/blob/1.7.latest/CHANGELOG.md?rgh-link-date=2024-01-16T22%3A37%3A04Z#dependencies) section)

Thanks for the review @dbeatty10, I did both 👍

While merging main back to the PR I realised this commit which was arguing for keeping the upper bound as it's in major-version-0, so I just upgraded 0.12 to 0.13 while I was resolving the conflict.
I've already checked the changelog of 0.12 there should be no breaking change.

What do you think?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.02%. Comparing base (6fd0a94) to head (d1642d9).
Report is 47 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9373      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.06%   88.02%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         178      178              
  Lines       22439    22439              
==========================================
- Hits        19762    19751      -11     
- Misses       2677     2688      +11     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	85.48% <ø> (-0.14%)	⬇️
unit	62.24% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[ChenyuLInx]

@rzjfr Thanks for contributing! This looks good to me!
Do you mind push a commit to get the code quality check passing? Then I can merge.

[rzjfr]

@rzjfr Thanks for contributing! This looks good to me! Do you mind push a commit to get the code quality check passing? Then I can merge.

Hi @ChenyuLInx ,
Thanks for checking the PR,

Sorry for that, It must have been failing when I created my branch and I didn't realize.
I merged main back again as this PR seem to have addressed the issue.

[safwank]

Any chance this will be merged soon?

[jerry153fish]

+1 We will need this to unblock our process. Thanks very much.