Fix use correct PATCH permission for /users/{username} endpoint

[henry3260]

What

This PR updates the permission check for the PATCH /roles/{user} endpoint in the FAB Auth Manager FastAPI routes.
Specifically, it changes the permission check from PATCH to PUT in the requires_fab_custom_view dependency.

Why

Previously, the endpoint was using requires_fab_custom_view("PATCH", ...) for a PATCH route, which caused a mismatch between the HTTP method and the required permission.
Aligning the permission check with the actual HTTP method ensures correct and predictable access control.

---

Was generative AI tooling used to co-author this PR?

• Yes (please specify the tool below)

---

• Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information. Note: commit author/co-author name and email in commits become permanently public when merged.
• For fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
• When adding dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
• For significant user-facing changes create newsfragment: {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.

[vincbeck]

That's expected, in Airflow auth model we use PUT to any modification operation. Which is the case here. I dont see any benefit of using PATCH

[henry3260]

That's expected, in Airflow auth model we use PUT to any modification operation. Which is the case here. I dont see any benefit of using PATCH

I noticed that the /roles/{name} endpoint uses PATCH in the permission check, so I want to update the /users/{username} endpoint to also use PATCH for consistency. wdyt?

or update /roles/{name} to use PUT instead?

[vincbeck]

That's expected, in Airflow auth model we use PUT to any modification operation. Which is the case here. I dont see any benefit of using PATCH

I noticed that the /roles/{name} endpoint uses PATCH in the permission check, so I want to update the /users/{username} endpoint to also use PATCH for consistency. wdyt?

or update /roles/{name} to use PUT instead?

Good catch, it should be PUT, can you please update it?