Fix setting of project ID in provide_authorized_gcloud

[jobegrabber]

fixes: #20426 and change in logic introduced (seemingly accidentally) in 2fadf3c

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (flake8, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it’s a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

[github-actions]

The PR is likely OK to be merged with just subset of tests for default Python and Database versions without running the full matrix of tests, because it does not modify the core of Airflow. If the committers decide that the full tests matrix is needed, they will add the label 'full tests needed'. Then you should rebase to the latest main or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease.

[potiuk]

Would it be possible to add a unit test covering this case @jobegrabber ? Woudl be great to avoid regressions in the future

[jobegrabber]

Would it be possible to add a unit test covering this case @jobegrabber ?

I'll try and see if I can set one up, I haven't contributed anything yet so I'll need to check out the dev setup first 🙂

[jobegrabber]

@potiuk I didn't have to add new tests, some of the existing ones are broken, among them the one that checks authentication with Google ADC.

For some reason, has_calls is used instead of assert_has_calls. I couldn't find any documentation of has_calls, but it seems to do the same thing as assert_has_calls, just that it returns a boolean instead of doing an assertion on its own. (EDIT: I'm wrong, it just seems to create a new mock ad-hoc..)This means the affected tests don't actually assert anything, making them pass although they shouldn't.

There are a couple of other places where has_calls is used:

(airflow-env) ➜  airflow git:(main) ✗ egrep -ir '[^_]has_calls' .
./tests/providers/google/common/hooks/test_base_google.py:        mock_check_output.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/common/hooks/test_base_google.py:        mock_check_output.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/transfers/test_sheets_to_gcs.py:        mock_sheet_hook.return_value.get_values.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/transfers/test_sheets_to_gcs.py:        mock_upload_data.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        mock_poll_job_complete.has_calls(mock.call(running_job_id), mock.call(running_job_id))
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        mock_schema.has_calls([mock.call(x, "") for x in ["field_1", "field_2"]])
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        assert mock_insert.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_pubsub.py:        publish_method.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_dataproc.py:        mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_dataproc.py:            mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/suite/operators/test_sheets.py:        mock_xcom.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/http/operators/test_http.py:            mock_info.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)

I don't think I have the time to fix all these in a short time frame, I haven't looked at these parts at all..

[jobegrabber]

@potiuk I didn't have to add new tests, some of the existing ones are broken, among them the one that checks authentication with Google ADC.

For some reason, has_calls is used instead of assert_has_calls. I couldn't find any documentation of has_calls, but it seems to do the same thing as assert_has_calls, just that it returns a boolean instead of doing an assertion on its own. This means the affected tests don't actually assert anything, making them pass although they shouldn't.

There are a couple of other places where has_calls is used:

(airflow-env) ➜  airflow git:(main) ✗ egrep -ir '[^_]has_calls' .
./tests/providers/google/common/hooks/test_base_google.py:        mock_check_output.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/common/hooks/test_base_google.py:        mock_check_output.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/transfers/test_sheets_to_gcs.py:        mock_sheet_hook.return_value.get_values.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/transfers/test_sheets_to_gcs.py:        mock_upload_data.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        mock_poll_job_complete.has_calls(mock.call(running_job_id), mock.call(running_job_id))
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        mock_schema.has_calls([mock.call(x, "") for x in ["field_1", "field_2"]])
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        assert mock_insert.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_pubsub.py:        publish_method.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_dataproc.py:        mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_dataproc.py:            mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/suite/operators/test_sheets.py:        mock_xcom.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/http/operators/test_http.py:            mock_info.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)

I don't think I have the time to fix all these in a short time frame, I haven't looked at these parts at all..

Actually, has_calls should simply create a new mock on mock_check_output ..

[potiuk]

For some reason, has_calls is used instead of assert_has_calls. I couldn't find any documentation of has_calls, but it seems to do the same thing as assert_has_calls, just that it returns a boolean instead of doing an assertion on its own. (EDIT: I'm wrong, it just seems to create a new mock ad-hoc..)This means the affected tests don't actually assert anything, making them pass although they shouldn't.

UPS!

There are a couple of other places where has_calls is used:

(airflow-env) ➜  airflow git:(main) ✗ egrep -ir '[^_]has_calls' .
./tests/providers/google/common/hooks/test_base_google.py:        mock_check_output.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/common/hooks/test_base_google.py:        mock_check_output.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/transfers/test_sheets_to_gcs.py:        mock_sheet_hook.return_value.get_values.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/transfers/test_sheets_to_gcs.py:        mock_upload_data.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        mock_poll_job_complete.has_calls(mock.call(running_job_id), mock.call(running_job_id))
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        mock_schema.has_calls([mock.call(x, "") for x in ["field_1", "field_2"]])
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_bigquery.py:        assert mock_insert.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_pubsub.py:        publish_method.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_cloud_memorystore.py:        mock_get_conn.return_value.get_instance.has_calls(
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_dataproc.py:        mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/cloud/hooks/test_dataproc.py:            mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/google/suite/operators/test_sheets.py:        mock_xcom.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/http/operators/test_http.py:            mock_info.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)
./tests/providers/airbyte/hooks/test_airbyte.py:        assert mock_get_job.has_calls(calls)

AH COOL. We should fix them.

I don't think I have the time to fix all these in a short time frame, I haven't looked at these parts at all..

No worries, I will create an issue for that and we will fix it. Also might make sense to ban using "has_calls" in our tests in this case!

[uranusjr]

cc @deedmitrij

[jobegrabber]

No worries, I will create an issue for that and we will fix it. Also might make sense to ban using "has_calls" in our tests in this case!

Thanks! I don't think there is anything else to do on this specific PR, is there?

[boring-cyborg]

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request!

[kaxil]

Thanks for the PR, well done 👏