confirm_destructive_query: Use confirm rather than prompt

[sharonyogev]

Description

Until now, the destructive query prompt, which is a great feature, uses click prompt with type=bool to confirm the query, those resulting weird behavior such:

postgres@localhost:tests> UPDATE test SET id=0;
You're about to run a destructive command.
Do you want to proceed? (y/n): t
Your call!
UPDATE 0
Time: 0.014s
postgres@localhost:tests>

This is because it capture t/true as yes and f/false as no, for example

I think we should use click confirm which is more suitable for this action
We can use it with default to "No" or without a default and force the user to enter

postgres@localhost:tests> UPDATE test SET id=0;
You're about to run a destructive command.
Do you want to proceed? [y/N]: t
Error: invalid input
You're about to run a destructive command.
Do you want to proceed? [y/N]:
Wise choice!
cancelled query
postgres@localhost:tests>

Checklist

• I've added this contribution to the changelog.rst.
• I've added my name to the AUTHORS file (or it's already there).

• I installed pre-commit hooks (pip install pre-commit && pre-commit install), and ran black on my code.
• Please squash merge this pull request (uncheck if you'd like us to merge as multiple commits)

[sharonyogev]

Thanks @j-bennet fixed the tests

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (13ca7d2) 79.57% compared to head (6f63ae1) 79.53%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1410      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   79.57%   79.53%   -0.04%     
==========================================
  Files          25       25              
  Lines        3035     3035              
==========================================
- Hits         2415     2414       -1     
- Misses        620      621       +1     

Files	Coverage Δ
pgcli/packages/prompt_utils.py	70.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

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

[sharonyogev]

@j-bennet Hi, the failure on 3.12 does not look like it's related to my change (Timeout exceeded), any idea? Thanks

[j-bennet]

@sharonyogev Integration tests can be flaky; I re-ran and now it's fine. Thank you for the PR.

[sharonyogev]

@j-bennet Yay!! Thanks 🙏