Fix conflict with newer versions of Snowplow tracker

[edgarrmondragon]

resolves #8719

Problem

Instaling dbt-core with meltano in the same virtualenv breaks dbt because contract conflict between minimal-snowplow-tracker (dependency of dbt) and snowplow-python-tracker.

Solution

Adds explicit version check and use minimal or full contract call.

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me
• 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
• This PR has no interface changes (e.g. macros, cli, logs, json artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX
• This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions

Based on #8680, by @akurdyukov.

[github-actions]

Thank you for your pull request! We could not find a changelog entry for this change. For details on how to document a change, see the contributing guide.

[dbeatty10]

Thanks for moving this over from #8680 @edgarrmondragon !

Could you use changie new as described here to add a changelog entry?

That will satisfy one of the CI checks and allow us to kick off the rest of the CI checks.

[edgarrmondragon]

@dbeatty10 this is ready for review!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (8a1b927) 87.94% compared to head (cc1a9e2) 85.53%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9528      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   87.94%   85.53%   -2.42%     
==========================================
  Files         168      168              
  Lines       22208    22212       +4     
==========================================
- Hits        19531    18998     -533     
- Misses       2677     3214     +537     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	85.53% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
unit	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[edgarrmondragon]

@dbeatty10 is there anything left to do here from my side? I noticed that coverage dropped but some workflows did not run I think, so I wonder if that's the cause.

[dbeatty10]

@dbeatty10 is there anything left to do here from my side? I noticed that coverage dropped but some workflows did not run I think, so I wonder if that's the cause.

Nothing on your side right now, when we have capacity, a member of our engineering team will give it a review.

In the meantime, I kicked off those workflows.

[edgarrmondragon]

check-artifact-changes doesn't like my branch name 😶

[dbeatty10]

check-artifact-changes doesn't like my branch name 😶

Oh no! What happens if you update your branch name to remove the fix/ portion?

[edgarrmondragon]

check-artifact-changes doesn't like my branch name 😶

Oh no! What happens if you update your branch name to remove the fix/ portion?

From https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/configuring-branches-and-merges-in-your-repository/managing-branches-in-your-repository/renaming-a-branch

If the renamed branch is the head branch of an open pull request, this pull request is closed.

I don't think I can do that without closing the PR 😭. Should I go ahead and open a fresh PR with an acceptable branch name?

[dbeatty10]

I don't think I can do that without closing the PR 😭. Should I go ahead and open a fresh PR with an acceptable branch name?

Yes, let's do that.

Sorry about the hassle on this @edgarrmondragon

[edgarrmondragon]

No worries @dbeatty10!

Superseded by #9680