Have StateBuilder return our actual state object and not simply a dict

[maxi297]

What

Have the state builder return our action TState domain object and not the internal state[X].stream. stream_state. Without this, all the integration tests/scenario based test needs to know how are state messages created which is flaky as if the implementation change, all those tests would have to be updated while if it changes and we use StateBuilder, we might have a change to make the change non-breaking. This is how it looks for both:

Scenario-based

https://github.com/airbytehq/airbyte/compare/maxi297/statebuilder-create-state-not-dict?expand=1#diff-7a5029caa174d3c73bca535ec76e6ea66b577aef2149b2cac27baaf53d72aac7L42-R45

Integration tests

This is what triggered the change as we would only have to pass the state to the entrypoint wrapper that would save this list/dicts as json. However, adding the state as a parameter of SourceStripe.init would make the integration tests handle two types of state: the one for the entrypoint wrapper and the one that is returned by .read_state which is not a List[AirbyteStateMessage]. So usage changes to:

SourceStripe(catalog, config, StateBuilder(). with_stream_state(_STREAM_NAME, state_dict).build())

... instead of

state = [
    {
        "type": "STREAM",
        "stream": {
            "stream_state": state_dict,
            "stream_descriptor": {"name": _STREAM_NAME},
        },
    }
]
SourceStripe(catalog, config, state)

🚨 User Impact 🚨

Scenario based tests were updated as part of this PR. As for integration tests, they will be updated as part of #32057. This might impact #33996 (comment) though @askarpets

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

1 Ignored Deployment

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
airbyte-docs	⬜️ Ignored (Inspect)	Visit Preview		Jan 29, 2024 7:29pm

[girarda]

🚢