dbt-core 1.5.x and 1.6.0 support

[ciklista]

Adding support for dbt-core 1.5.x

⚠️ Breaks support for older versions of dbt-core. For older versions of dbt-core, users would have to install prior dbt-invoke versions. ⚠️

Given the many changes in the dbt-core API, I'd argue that backwards compatibility increases code complexity of this project to the extend that it becomes to much of a burden to keep the code clean and simple. Also, this allows for a cleaner cut to switch to dbt-duckdb for testing.

Addresses #34

Changes:

• migrating to dbt-duckdb for testing
  • running dbt project as part of the tests
  • fixing tests for new columns in seeds (dbt_scd_id and dbt_updated_at)
• fixing issues with new json log formats
• black replaced all single quotes with double quotes. I hope this is fine ;)

[ciklista]

@robastel feel free to review.
Could you also remove the tests for dbt-core <1.5.x from the expected tests in case you agree to drop support for older dbt-core versions?

[robastel]

Thanks for submitting this pull request @ciklista !

I need a bit of time to review. It looked like a lot of changes, but I see much of it is just changing single quotes to double quotes, as you mentioned.

Black has an option -S for skipping string normalization, as they call it: https://black.readthedocs.io/en/stable/usage_and_configuration/the_basics.html#s-skip-string-normalization

For example, I use that option in the lint job here: https://github.com/Dashlane/dbt-invoke/blob/c749c72698083e39f2d85659ca225c99235b8968/.github/workflows/test.yml#L26C8-L26C8

Are you able to use that option to get rid of the quote changes (or at least separate them into their own commit) so that it is easier to review? I want avoid overlooking an actual logic change in the sea of quote changes.

Thanks again for taking this on!

[ciklista]

Thanks for the feedback @robastel, I reverted the quotes changes.

[robastel]

Thanks for the feedback @robastel, I reverted the quotes changes.

Thanks again @ciklista, that definitely helped the readability for me. I've done a quick read through of the changes and plan to take a more thorough look in the coming days.

[ciklista]

@robastel did you have the chance to look into the code? Are there any open questions?

[robastel]

Sorry for the review delay @ciklista and thanks again for this PR!

The general structure makes sense to me.

I have left some comments/suggestions for you to consider. Feel free to push back if there is anything you disagree with or feel should be considered separately from this PR.

[robastel]

Thank you @ciklista !