Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contributors' Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/README.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our prek-hooks will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
• Always keep your Pull Requests rebased, otherwise your build might fail due to changes not related to your commits.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: dev@airflow.apache.org
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

what if we also update pyproject.toml, since it also has dependencies such as

There are some errors in tests -> i guess adding defaults in tests is needed. It happened in one of the related PRs.

Hi @potiuk , Tests fail because

(https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/960c2c5d6cb0e731e1b76f498abe1f11a224d4c3/providers/edge3/tests/unit/edge3/executors/test_edge_executor.py#L64C8-L64C86)` raises “section/key not found”, even though the provider defines a default.

What is the correct pattern in providers to safely read provider config defaults in unit tests?

What is the correct pattern in providers to safely read provider config defaults in unit tests?

It seems we are currently missing this functionality in the new conf. We have been discussing it in the cncf.kubernetes conf PR #60074 (comment) -> and I think we will get it implemented there as a generic feature that you will be able to reuse here. So I guess good idea for you is to read what we proposed there and possibly review/participate in implementation (and then rebase when we merge the implementation and apply it here).

Tests are failing

@Divyaselva14, overall, the changes look good, but the test seems to be failing.

@sunank200 , I have rebased but tried adding fallbacks. I am looking into this approach [60074#issuecomment]

@Divyaselva14 are you still working on this PR?

@eladkal, I did try to move this forward, but tests are failing with new approach. If you have guidance on the preferred direction here, I’m happy to iterate , otherwise I understand if this should be closed.