Normalize bare entity IDs in test parameter preparation

[Oluwajuwon-O]

Description

This PR addresses the entity identifier and parameter normalization issues described in the technical documentation .

Hardcoded Execution Artifacts in Test Parameters

Previously, test parameters stored in the database required users to hardcode internal execution prefixes (e.g., dot_model__) or dbt macro syntax (e.g., ref('dot_model__...')). This leaked DOT's internal execution implementation details into the user-facing configuration, making the test metadata brittle and domain-specific.

Resolution

• Bare Entity ID Normalization: Introduced to_bare_entity_id, to_dbt_ref, and to_dbt_table in utils/configuration_utils.py. This allows the database to store clean, domain-neutral entity strings (e.g., all_airports_data).
• Dynamic Artifact Generation: Updated generate_tests_from_db to pass parameters through a new prepare_test_parameters function. This dynamically wraps bare entity IDs into the correct dbt or Great Expectations syntax at runtime.
• Backward Compatibility & Aliasing: The normalization layer safely parses legacy ref() strings and translates deprecated parameter keys (e.g., reference to to, form_name to data_table) to ensure older project configurations do not break.
• Unit Coverage: Added test_entity_id_normalize.py to assert expected behavior across bare IDs, prefixed tables, quoted dbt references, and legacy parameter aliases.

In the Technical Documentation, this is addressed in Section 6.

Asana Task

Deployment Readiness*

Testing

Describe or check:

• Created or updated unit, feature, and/or integration tests
• Typical manual testing in the local env browser, dev pipeline, etc.

Deployment Notes

Describe or check:

• No special deployment steps required

Rollback Plan

Describe or check:

• Standard revert is sufficient (git revert)

Reviewer Guidance / Questions*

Screenshots / Testing Evidence*

SOC 2 Change Management Checklist

• None of the below are true in this code
• New roles/permissions are introduced without review and approval by the product manager
• Hardcoded credentials, secrets, or API keys are present in this code
• Secrets are being managed outside of the approved secrets management process (e.g., GitHub Secrets, environment variables)
• PII or sensitive data handling is introduced or changed without being reviewed against our data classification policy
• Sensitive data is written to logs
• Input validation and sanitization is missing
• An unnecessary attack surface has been introduced (e.g., unused endpoints, open ports, debug modes left enabled)
• Common vulnerabilities have been introduced in the code (inc. any dependencies added or updated)
• No review for common vulnerabilities has been conducted
• Not tested in a non-production environment
• Breaking changes to existing APIs or integrations with downstream consumers being notified
• Performance impact has not been considered or acceptable
• Appropriate audit logging is missing for any security-relevant actions introduced by this change
• Log entries contain sensitive or PII data
• All existing tests do not pass locally (./vendor/bin/pest)

Provide justification if you are submitting a PR with any boxes checked other than the first.

---

Reminder for Reviewers: By approving this PR you are confirming that you have reviewed the code for correctness, security, and compliance with our engineering and SOC 2 standards. Do not approve PRs where SOC 2 checklist items are checked without documented justification.

*Optional

---

• To see the specific tasks where the Asana app for GitHub is being used, see below:
  • https://app.asana.com/0/0/1217234948438344