Add test for sensitive config masking in airflowctl

[Subham-KRLX]

Description

Added test to verify sensitive config values are properly masked when using airflowctl.

The Airflow API already masks sensitive values (like fernet_key, sql_alchemy_conn) when returning config data. This test confirms that airflowctl correctly receives and displays those masked values.

Changes

• Added config masking tests to tests/airflow_ctl/ctl/commands/test_config_command.py (CLI list command)
• Added masking verification to tests/airflow_ctl/api/test_operations.py (API get operation)
• Verifies ConfigOperations.list() handles masked data correctly

Related Issue

relates: #59843

AI Usage

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Yes, used an AI coding assistant to help generate test cases and refactor code structure.

Testing

pytest tests/airflow_ctl/ctl/commands/test_config_command.py
pytest tests/airflow_ctl/api/test_operations.py

[Subham-KRLX]

@potiuk @bugraoz93 thanks for the review setup.
This PR adds a focused test for airflowctl preserving API-masked sensitive configs (e.g. fernet_key, sql_alchemy_conn).
One static check is failing (likely a minor lint/formatting issue post-force-push). Could you advise what to fix/add? Happy to iterate quickly to get it green.

[potiuk]

You can use prek to fix it - just follow basic configuration of development environment / contributing docs to set it up and help you to fix the issues.

It's actually even written in the error message - no need to post questions and wait for someone- better to read what error message says and apply the remediation it suggests.

[bugraoz93]

Thanks for raising a PR! It would be cleaner if we didn't create a new file, but instead put the test in the file we already have for config command. We generally tend to have a test per Python file, which can serve for multiple purposes under the unit test category

https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/airflow-ctl/tests/airflow_ctl/ctl/commands/test_config_command.py

As Jarek suggested, please use prek to fix. You can check the CI job and use the --all-files param on prek to rerun those for all files

[bugraoz93]

We also have some under here for auto generated ones tests/.../api/test_operations.py. I think we should add test for get and export.

Export will be on specific file in above message test_config_command.py and for get it should be in test_operations.py

[Subham-KRLX]

@bugraoz93 @potiuk I have reorganized the tests per your suggestions:

Moved test_config_list_masking_preservation() to test_config_command.py (for CLI list command)
Moved test_get_masked_value() to test_operations.py (for API get operation)
Removed the standalone test file
Fixed all static checks with prek
The PR now follows the "one test per Python file" convention.

[bugraoz93]

Looks better! Thanks!

Sorry for being double, but could you please add a test to airflow-ctl-test as well on this specific case? It could be on another PR as well, then we can just make this PR relates: #<issue> and next PR closes: #<issue> in the description? Because we are indeed testing if these lines work well with the line of codes but actual integration test can only be proven there. Although I am not sure if we need to put this integration test on both sides. For me, they should exist in both places since they are different distributions and released separately to fully show our tooling follows up on what has been written.
What do you think, @potiuk?

[bugraoz93]

In integration tests, we should consider creating different test cases (different file, we can still use debug mode as initiation) then usual happy path. Splitting the integration test over the test scenario paths could be easier to manage for integration tests.

[Subham-KRLX]

@bugraoz93 Thanks for the approval I will create a separate PR for the integration tests in airflow-ctl-tests. Will update this to Relates #59843 and the new PR will Closes #59843.

[bugraoz93]

@Subham-KRLX Could you please also update the description about AI usage? We have added a template that explains the AI usage on the solution

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?
Yes, explain which one or No

[Subham-KRLX]

@bugraoz93 All necessary changes have been made including the updated AI usage section in the description as requested.