Add checks for required parameters to Provider scripts (K-R)

[obulat]

Fixes

Fixes #1883 by @obulat

Description

This PR replaces is None checks for required values with if <value> checks because falsy values such as empty string or empty list should also short-circuit the provider API scripts.

Testing Instructions

All the CI tests should pass.

Checklist

• My pull request has a descriptive title (not a vague title likeUpdate index.md).
• My pull request targets the default branch of the repository (main) or a parent feature branch.
• My commit messages follow best practices.
• My code follows the established code style of the repository.
• I added or updated tests for the changes I made (if applicable).
• I added or updated documentation (if applicable).
• I tried running the project locally and verified that there are no visible errors.
• I ran the DAG documentation generator (if applicable).

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin

Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1

Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
1 Letterman Drive
Suite D4700
San Francisco, CA, 94129

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.


Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
    have the right to submit it under the open source license
    indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
    of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
    license and I have the right under that license to submit that
    work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
    by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
    permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
    in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
    person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
    it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
    are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
    personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
    maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
    this project or the open source license(s) involved.

[AetherUnbound]

Nice! I'm surprised there were not more tests which were affected. Do you think it makes sense to go through and add test cases for the providers which check against a few falsy values?

[obulat]

@AetherUnbound, I re-requested your review because this PR has changed a lot since your approval.

[krysal]

LGTM. Thank you for caring about splitting the changes for easier reviews and adding type hints ✨

[stacimc]

LGTM, no blocking requests. Thanks for all the additional cleanup and type hints added as well :)

[stacimc]

Could image_url still be falsy here?

[obulat]

I think it shouldn't because we check that media[size].get("uri") is not falsy above (I updated the check).

[obulat]

Unless we didn't find any size in media, in which case media_data is still {}. So we still have to have the check.

[stacimc]

Should this is None check also be changed to a check for falsy values?