use variable for client schemes, allowing override

[kujenga]

This change is intended to make the default client implementations more flexible so that their scheme can be customized. This can be useful in scenarios where a subclass wants to implement a custom scheme on e.g. a S3 compatible API [1] but with a custom scheme so that the default S3 access is still also available.

[1] https://cloudpathlib.drivendata.org/stable/authentication/#accessing-custom-s3-compatible-object-stores

The tests have been updated to include a new s3-like rig which uses the
new scheme override functionality.

(If there is a better strategy for tests or this seems like overkill let me know and happy to adjust! It seems a bit more work is needed to get them passing)

Closes #466

---

Contributor checklist:

• I have read and understood CONTRIBUTING.md
• Confirmed an issue exists for the PR, and the text Closes #issue appears in the PR summary (e.g., Closes #123).
• Confirmed PR is rebased onto the latest base
• Confirmed failure before change and success after change
• Any generic new functionality is replicated across cloud providers if necessary
• Tested manually against live server backend for at least one provider
• Added tests for any new functionality
• Linting passes locally
• Tests pass locally
• Updated HISTORY.md with the issue that is addressed and the PR you are submitting. If the top section is not `## UNRELEASED``, then you need to add a new section to the top of the document for your change.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.00000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 93.2%. Comparing base (b776bee) to head (147db5b).
Report is 1 commits behind head on 467-live-tests.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cloudpathlib/azure/azblobclient.py	75.0%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           467-live-tests    #467     +/-   ##
================================================
- Coverage            94.2%   93.2%   -1.0%     
================================================
  Files                  23      23             
  Lines                1745    1745             
================================================
- Hits                 1645    1628     -17     
- Misses                100     117     +17     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
cloudpathlib/gs/gsclient.py	90.0% <100.0%> (-1.5%)	⬇️
cloudpathlib/s3/s3client.py	92.9% <ø> (-1.5%)	⬇️
cloudpathlib/azure/azblobclient.py	89.9% <75.0%> (-6.9%)	⬇️

[pjbull]

Yeah, the hard-coding is a bug. Thanks for the fix. Agreed we want to enable scenarios like you lay out.

Do we need to add cloud_prefix to the client though? I'd rather keep it in one place just on the path.

For all the instances you replaced, you should be able to get the cloud_prefix from the instance of the cloud_path passed to the method, no?

Would that work for your use cases? If not, we could potentially add cloud_prefix as a property that reaches through _cloud_meta to get the associated cloud_prefix from the path_class:
https://github.com/drivendataorg/cloudpathlib/blob/master/cloudpathlib/cloudpath.py#L96-L100

[pjbull]

Also, one other thought: I think adding a rig for this is overkill. That will duplicate all the tests, which isn't necessary. I'd just do a single test with the custom scheme to show that piece works.

[kujenga]

For all the instances you replaced, you should be able to get the cloud_prefix from the instance of the cloud_path passed to the method, no?

Good call, done!

Also, one other thought: I think adding a rig for this is overkill. That will duplicate all the tests, which isn't necessary. I'd just do a single test with the custom scheme to show that piece works.

Fair enough, done!

If there's anything else just let me know! I left them as separate commits to keep what I changed clear but happy to squash as well if you prefer.

[pjbull]

One last tweak to the tests and could you add a HISTORY.md comment? Then I think it's good to go. Thanks!

[kujenga]

great, let me know if there's anything else!

[kujenga]

Hi @pjbull , any chance you'd be able to tag a release with this new functionality? Thank you!

[pjbull]

@kujenga Yep! Need to get a release out for 3.13 anyway in the next few days.