[CT-2776] [Feature] Enable-post-parse-population-of-dbt-custom-env

[gem7318]

Description

See details in the issue: #8010.

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me
• I have signed the CLA
• I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
• This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
• I have opened an issue to add/update docs, or docs changes are not required/relevant for this PR
• I have run changie new to create a changelog entry

[cla-bot]

Thanks for your pull request, and welcome to our community! We require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement and we don't seem to have your signature on file. Check out this article for more information on why we have a CLA.

In order for us to review and merge your code, please submit the Individual Contributor License Agreement form attached above above. If you have questions about the CLA, or if you believe you've received this message in error, please reach out through a comment on this PR.

CLA has not been signed by users: @gem7318

[jtcohen6]

@gem7318 Cool to see the PR! I'm not strictly opposed to this from a product/UX perspective. Do you mind opening a quick issue to outline the use case? (You've written some of it above, and a bit more in our shared slack thread)

Update:

• [CT-2776] [Feature] Allow get_metadata_vars() to populate from env post-initial invocation #8010

Happy to have you contributing :)

[QMalcolm]

First off, thank you for doing this work @gem7318! This looks great, and we should get this in 🙂

The second thing is, in a perfect world this should go away some time in the future. Basically, one shouldn't have to alter the environment variables mid run to get the desired results. This seems indicative of larger structural issues we need to address. However, I can make no guarantees of when we'll address the structural changes necessary to support the desired functionality without altering the environment variables mid run. Thus we should absolutely move forward with allowing this.

[QMalcolm]

@gem7318 It looks like there are two remaining github actions that are required to be run before we can merge this. I believe main needs to be merged into this branch so that this branch has the required github actions (they were recent additions to our github workflow, and are now required).

[gem7318]

@gem7318 It looks like there are two remaining github actions that are required to be run before we can merge this. I believe main needs to be merged into this branch so that this branch has the required github actions (they were recent additions to our github workflow, and are now required).

@QMalcolm I just synced my fork + pulled main + rebased out of habit - let me know if this isn't what we were looking (looks good to me though).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #7998 (b2dea01) into main (f637092) will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7998      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   86.28%   86.23%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         174      174              
  Lines       25518    25518              
==========================================
- Hits        22017    22005      -12     
- Misses       3501     3513      +12     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
core/dbt/events/functions.py	92.79% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[QMalcolm]

A -0.05% in test coverage feels acceptable. Gonna use my judgement and move forward, merging 🙂

[gem7318]

A -0.05% in test coverage feels acceptable. Gonna use my judgement and move forward, merging 🙂

LGTM and thank you both🙏🏻 CC @jtcohen6