Fix circular import

[dradetsky]

resolves #11142

Problem

There was a circular import which required duplicating a method in core/dbt/config/profile.py. This was both ugly and an impediment to improving that method if required (as in #11108).

Solution

Fix the circular import and remove the duplication

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 or 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.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.86%. Comparing base (6621015) to head (f89980b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #11137      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.91%   88.86%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         183      186       +3     
  Lines       23937    23971      +34     
==========================================
+ Hits        21284    21302      +18     
- Misses       2653     2669      +16     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	86.17% <100.00%> (-0.12%)	⬇️
unit	61.97% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
Unit Tests	61.97% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
Integration Tests	86.17% <100.00%> (-0.12%)	⬇️

[dradetsky]

wow, I didn't know I fixed an issue! good job me!

[dradetsky]

The one check CI is uhappy with is code coverage, here: https://github.com/dbt-labs/dbt-core/pull/11137/checks?check_run_id=34330125418

86.17% (-0.12%) compared to 6621015

So probably what's happened here is that we've added 1 line of imports (which is not considered covered even if it is actually exercised by tests), and then removed ~10 lines of bugs & duplication. These removed lines were covered, and thus coverage has gone down (it's also possible that we're accidentally counting changelog lines as uncovered code, but this is less likely).

Anyway, the moral of the story is that code coverage is not an ultra-precise measure of code quality. We could add a few lines of no-ops to an otherwise-covered function to "fix" this, but I don't recommend this.