Fix regression when an exposure references a deprecated model

[dbeatty10]

Resolves #10911

Problem

Our current code looks like this:

child_node = self.manifest.nodes[child_unique_id]

This will raise a KeyError if child_unique_id is not found in the dictionary.

We'd want to use this if we're certain that the key will always exist, and we want an error to be raised if it doesn't. But an error is exactly opposite of what we want. Rather, we want to get None instead of an error.

Solution

Change to this code:

child_node = self.manifest.nodes.get(child_unique_id)

This will return None if child_unique_id is not found in the dictionary. Since the key might not exist, this allows us to gracefully handle it without raising an exception (i.e. checking if isinstance(child_node, ModelNode) or not).

Testing

Manually confirmed that the new test class failed without the code change ❌ and passes with the code change ✅ .

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.
• 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.14%. Comparing base (bdb79e8) to head (e32ea5c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10915      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.20%   89.14%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         183      183              
  Lines       23464    23464              
==========================================
- Hits        20930    20917      -13     
- Misses       2534     2547      +13     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	86.43% <100.00%> (-0.13%)	⬇️
unit	62.06% <0.00%> (ø)

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

Components	Coverage Δ
Unit Tests	62.06% <0.00%> (ø)
Integration Tests	86.43% <100.00%> (-0.13%)	⬇️

[danlsn]

At the risk of being too emotional, I really appreciate you adding my name to the changelog @dbeatty10

This is the first meaningful open-source contribution I've ever made and for it to be on a project I love so much and that our organisation completely depends on, it means a lot to me.

It might be the tiniest change ever, but nonetheless, thanks!

[Tonayya]

@danlsn you're a legend thanks so much for your contribution ❤️