switch to follow_redirects on httpx.get call in CloudSQL provider

[philipherrmann]

Also:

• set min httpx version to 0.21.1 to match follow_redirects API
• fix weakness in _get_bool which prevented to explicitly set parameters to 'false' in extras

Trying to solve #20088 (comment)

---

^ Add meaningful description above

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code change, Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in UPDATING.md.

[boring-cyborg]

Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (flake8, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it’s a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

[potiuk]

I looked a bit closer and thought about consequences. I really think we shoudl do it in backwards-compatible way and run a a conditional method. We would like to install new google provider with both - older and newer installations where httpx is potentially limited by Airlfow installation (and especially airflow constraints).

I think the right solution will be to sense with 'inspect signature' https://docs.python.org/3/library/inspect.html#introspecting-callables-with-the-signature-object and use the right parameter. Unfortunately httpx developer did not provide us with backwards-compatibility path, so we have to do it ourselves I am afraid.

[potiuk]

ANy chance to get it thsi way @philipherrmann ?

[philipherrmann]

Sure. I can't oversee the consequences nearly as good, so I would just follow your suggestion. Sensing is a nice idea, but just try/except is more "pythonic" (EAFP), isn't it? I would go for that later.

[potiuk]

Sure. I can't oversee the consequences nearly as good, so I would just follow your suggestion. Sensing is a nice idea, but just try/except is more "pythonic" (EAFP), isn't it? I would go for that later.

Both would work, I guess, but I think checking for attr is more explicit IMHO and better expresses the intent. Also same exception can be thrown if you happen to pass another argument which is unexpected which might hide another error/typo

[potiuk]

Suggested change

	if val == 'False' or val is False:
	return False
	return True
	return val not in ("False", False)

[potiuk]

One nit with simpler function.

[github-actions]

The PR is likely OK to be merged with just subset of tests for default Python and Database versions without running the full matrix of tests, because it does not modify the core of Airflow. If the committers decide that the full tests matrix is needed, they will add the label 'full tests needed'. Then you should rebase to the latest main or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease.

[boring-cyborg]

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request!