Remove duplicate line of code for configuration copy

[khalidmammadov]

This is code improvement PR to remove a duplicate line. The code copies config in either cases of IF statement hence duplicate call.
Moving that before IF makes it unique and sufficient for the purpose.

I have moved first call above IF and removed ELSE block

---

^ Add meaningful description above

Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code change, Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in UPDATING.md.

[github-actions]

The PR most likely needs to run full matrix of tests because it modifies parts of the core of Airflow. However, committers might decide to merge it quickly and take the risk. If they don't merge it quickly - please rebase it to the latest main at your convenience, or amend the last commit of the PR, and push it with --force-with-lease.

[XD-DENG]

Hi @khalidmammadov , I assume you were trying to rebase but having some issues?

Given there is one earlier approval, to block accidental merging, I'll add this change request to block merging.

[khalidmammadov]

That's fine, thanks. I will let you know once I resolve the issue

[ashb]

These lines shouldn'be be duplicated -- check out 670f2ed when it was first added (they got broken a bit in the past by 151934c#diff-e039f5fcb6c655f83aef48e7d7e0c430224c3e1af92d150a6782a3d8baff13ef)

[khalidmammadov]

@ashb Exactly, that's why I though to remove one of them.

Looks like there is an issue with the build pipeline that affects this as well. Something to do with azure-cosmos package version. Not sure who needs to look into it

[ashb]

@khalidmammadov Could you add the difference back instead please? :)

[khalidmammadov]

@ashb You mean add params to this tmp_configuration_copy function and restore below calls?
cfg_path = tmp_configuration_copy(chmod=0o600,
include_env=True,
include_cmds=True)

[khalidmammadov]

@ashb I did look into your references and as I see that function had 2 extra parameters which were not used in the function body when they were first introduced, although calls made some distinction by supplying different arguments which made no difference as they are not used! The second PR removed those 2 parameters as they have no value and was probably causing pylint to complain as that PR was for pylint integration.
So, this PR finally removes that second call for that function which was unnecessary from outset.

[khalidmammadov]

@XD-DENG can you unlock it please, so I can see if builds are passing as I did one more rebase after that?

Dismiss the blocking (there is another change request now anyway)

[potiuk]

Github Actions had outage: closed/reopended to rebuild.

[khalidmammadov]

Closing this as @ashb solved the actual issue with the call and hence not duplicate anymore. #18772