Fix: Making sure sensitive data is always masked in airflowctl

[saifxyzyz]

closes: #59843

1. renamed _check_expose_config() and simplified the logic of the function
2. checked and tested for any missing entries in the config.yml, found none missing

---

^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an 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 a newsfragment file, named {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in airflow-core/newsfragments.

[jscheffl]

See comment

[jscheffl]

Looks good for me now. As it is security sensitive would like to have another pair of eyes on it from maintainer group prior merge.

[saifxyzyz]

Looks good for me now. As it is security sensitive would like to have another pair of eyes on it from maintainer group prior merge.

Yes, thanks for reviewing it!

[jscheffl]

Oh, some CI side effects of other cross-checks - seems to be they also need to be mastered.

[saifxyzyz]

I found that the smtp user and password were deprecated to use smtp connections instead, so reverted changes in the config.yml; found no missing entries the config.yml file

[jscheffl]

I found that the smtp user and password were deprecated to use smtp connections instead, so reverted changes in the config.yml; found no missing entries the config.yml file

Okay, reading the diff now makes more sense. But the changes are functionally equivalent to previous code, just in other structure. Or do I mis-read the diff? Result is now more like a refactoring result, not a change.

Changes

[saifxyzyz]

I found that the smtp user and password were deprecated to use smtp connections instead, so reverted changes in the config.yml; found no missing entries the config.yml file

Okay, reading the diff now makes more sense. But the changes are functionally equivalent to previous code, just in other structure. Or do I mis-read the diff? Result is now more like a refactoring result, not a change.

yes, it is just refactoring, if the structural changes alone aren't worth the merge, I'm open to closing this, I'll leave the final call to you

[saifxyzyz]

I believe PR #59880 would solve this issue as well, so closing this as non-functional refactor. Thanks for the review!

[jscheffl]

I believe PR #59880 would solve this issue as well, so closing this as non-functional refactor. Thanks for the review!

Thanks for the discussion and patience!