[airflow] Extend airflow context parameter check for BaseOperator.execute (AIR302)

[Lee-W]

Summary

• feat
  • add is_execute_method_inherits_from_airflow_operator for checking the removed context key in the execute method
• refactor: rename
  • is_airflow_task as is_airflow_task_function_def
  • in_airflow_task as in_airflow_task_function_def
  • removed_in_3 as airflow_3_removal_expr
  • removed_in_3_function_def as airflow_3_removal_function_def
• test:
  • reorganize test cases

Test Plan

a test fixture has been updated

[Lee-W]

as a heads up, I'll be less active next week as it's the lunar new year in Taiwan. Thanks for helping out!

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[dhruvmanila]

refactor: rename

• is_airflow_task as is_decorated_by_airflow_task
• check_function_parameters as check_parameters_in_function_def
• removed_in_3 as removed_expr_in_3
• removed_in_3_function_def as removed_funciton_def_in_3

Can you provide the motivation for these renames? We usually prefer to have active voice instead of passive (at least regarding the first two renames) (https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/2b3550c85fcc55d93216c4d4ef64c5f0a5766053/crates/ruff_python_semantic/src/analyze/visibility.rs). I'm a bit torn on the last two renames because it indicates to me that some expression / function definition has been removed but that's not the case. I think we should rename them to airflow_3_removal (similar to numpy_2_0_deprecation) and add suffix _expr / _function_def to indicate the node that's being checked. Happy to hear your thoughts on this.

[dhruvmanila]

as a heads up, I'll be less active next week as it's the lunar new year in Taiwan. Thanks for helping out!

Thanks for the heads up. Have a great week! Do you know if there's more work required to complete #14626 ?

[dhruvmanila]

Looks good, thank you.

I've a minor concern about the renames.

[Lee-W]

refactor: rename

• is_airflow_task as is_decorated_by_airflow_task
• check_function_parameters as check_parameters_in_function_def
• removed_in_3 as removed_expr_in_3
• removed_in_3_function_def as removed_funciton_def_in_3

Can you provide the motivation for these renames? We usually prefer to have active voice instead of passive (at least regarding the first two renames) (https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff/blob/2b3550c85fcc55d93216c4d4ef64c5f0a5766053/crates/ruff_python_semantic/src/analyze/visibility.rs). I'm a bit torn on the last two renames because it indicates to me that some expression / function definition has been removed but that's not the case. I think we should rename them to airflow_3_removal (similar to numpy_2_0_deprecation) and add suffix _expr / _function_def to indicate the node that's being checked. Happy to hear your thoughts on this.

The motivation was to make it more accurate. I tried to change it a bit. Please take a look. Thanks!

[Lee-W]

as a heads up, I'll be less active next week as it's the lunar new year in Taiwan. Thanks for helping out!

Thanks for the heads up. Have a great week! Do you know if there's more work required to complete #14626 ?

There're 3 cases I can think of as of now.

1. context.get("conf") or context["get"] in BaseOperator.execute
2. In PythonOperator(..., python_callable=func), the func needs to be checked
3. templated variable (e.g., params="{{ conf }}"

The first should be easy, the second might need some exploration, and the third one is a bit tricky, and I'm not even sure whether we should check it.
Whether a variable can be templated is somewhat flexible, but on the other hand, it's also uncommon to have a string happen to be in that format