Update conf import for edge3

[Divyaselva14]

This PR migrates the edge3 provider to import conf from the common compat module instead of directly from airflow.configuration, ensuring compatibility across Airflow 2.11+ and 3.0+.

Changes

Updated import statements from from airflow.configuration import conf to from airflow.providers.common.compat.sdk import conf

Related: #60000

---

^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an 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 a newsfragment file, named {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.

[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 Contributors' Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/README.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our prek-hooks 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.
• Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
  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

[Prab-27]

what if we also update pyproject.toml, since it also has dependencies such as

airflow/providers/edge3/pyproject.toml

Line 62 in 17fbc9d

"apache-airflow-providers-common-compat>=1.10.1",

as issue describes ?

[potiuk]

There are some errors in tests -> i guess adding defaults in tests is needed. It happened in one of the related PRs.

[Divyaselva14]

Hi @potiuk , Tests fail because

(https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/960c2c5d6cb0e731e1b76f498abe1f11a224d4c3/providers/edge3/tests/unit/edge3/executors/test_edge_executor.py#L64C8-L64C86)` raises “section/key not found”, even though the provider defines a default.

What is the correct pattern in providers to safely read provider config defaults in unit tests?

[potiuk]

What is the correct pattern in providers to safely read provider config defaults in unit tests?

It seems we are currently missing this functionality in the new conf. We have been discussing it in the cncf.kubernetes conf PR #60074 (comment) -> and I think we will get it implemented there as a generic feature that you will be able to reuse here. So I guess good idea for you is to read what we proposed there and possibly review/participate in implementation (and then rebase when we merge the implementation and apply it here).

[dheerajturaga]

LGTM

[uranusjr]

Tests are failing

[sunank200]

@Divyaselva14, overall, the changes look good, but the test seems to be failing.

[Divyaselva14]

@sunank200 , I have rebased but tried adding fallbacks. I am looking into this approach [60074#issuecomment]

[eladkal]

@Divyaselva14 are you still working on this PR?

[Divyaselva14]

@eladkal, I did try to move this forward, but tests are failing with new approach. If you have guidance on the preferred direction here, I’m happy to iterate , otherwise I understand if this should be closed.

[potiuk]

@Divyaselva14 This PR has been converted to draft because it does not yet meet our Pull Request quality criteria.

Issues found:

• ❌ Merge conflicts: This PR has merge conflicts with the main branch. Your branch is 1316 commits behind main. Please rebase your branch (git fetch origin && git rebase origin/main), resolve the conflicts, and push again. See contributing quick start.
• ❌ Provider tests: Failing: provider distributions tests / Providers wheel tests, Postgres tests: providers / DB-prov:Postgres:14:3.10:common.compat,edge3, MySQL tests: providers / DB-prov:MySQL:8.0:3.10:common.compat,edge3, Sqlite tests: providers / DB-prov:Sqlite:3.10:common.compat,edge3, Non-DB tests: providers / Non-DB-prov::3.10:common.compat,edge3 (+1 more). Run provider tests with breeze run pytest <provider-test-path> -xvs. See Provider tests docs.

Note: Your branch is 1316 commits behind main. Some check failures may be caused by changes in the base branch rather than by your PR. Please rebase your branch and push again to get up-to-date CI results.

What to do next:

• The comment informs you what you need to do.
• Fix each issue, then mark the PR as "Ready for review" in the GitHub UI - but only after making sure that all the issues are fixed.
• Maintainers will then proceed with a normal review.

Converting a PR to draft is not a rejection — it is an invitation to bring the PR up to the project's standards so that maintainer review time is spent productively. If you have questions, feel free to ask on the Airflow Slack.

[potiuk]

This pull request has been converted to draft due to quality issues more than a week ago and there has been no response from the author.

@Divyaselva14, you are welcome to reopen this PR when you are ready to continue working on it. Thank you for your contribution!