Support passing args as keyword argument for run-operation in programmatic invocations

[dbeatty10]

resolves #10355

Problem

As described in #10355, there's a naming conflict between the first parameter of dbtRunner.invoke() and the --args CLI flag of the run-operation command.

Solution

1. Make the first parameter positional-only
2. Rename the first parameter from args to invocation_args
3. Allow run_dbt and run_dbt_and_capture test utilities to take optional kwargs parameters for testing purposes
4. Update the small handful of places that were using a keyword parameter rather than positional

Interface changes

These interface changes assume that the intended and dominant usage of dbtRunner.invoke is a positional first argument along with optional kwargs:

• Within dbtRunner.invoke rename args to invocation_args and explicitly make it positional
• Align run_dbt and run_dbt_and_capture with those same changes

If anyone has code like dbtRunner().invoke(args=["run", ...]) they would need to update it by removing args=.

Testing strategy

Indirectly testing dbtRunner().invoke() via run_dbt_and_capture & run_dbt -- added this new test to verify that custom args makes it through:

    def test_args_as_keyword(self, project):
        results, log_output = run_dbt_and_capture(
            ["run-operation", "print_something"], args={"message": "Morning coffee"}
        )
        assert "Morning coffee" in log_output

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/relevant for this PR
• This PR has interface changes and it has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX
• Modified function already includes type annotations

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.80%. Comparing base (c668846) to head (9c3fa09).
Report is 201 commits behind head on main.

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (25.00%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10473      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.86%   88.80%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         180      180              
  Lines       22560    22573      +13     
==========================================
  Hits        20047    20047              
- Misses       2513     2526      +13     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	86.02% <100.00%> (-0.18%)	⬇️
unit	62.22% <25.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️

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

Components	Coverage Δ
Unit Tests	62.22% <25.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
Integration Tests	86.02% <100.00%> (-0.18%)	⬇️

[github-actions]

This PR has been marked as Stale because it has been open with no activity as of late. If you would like the PR to remain open, please comment on the PR or else it will be closed in 7 days.