chore(security): Renaming schemas_accessible_by_user

[john-bodley]

SUMMARY

This PR renames the schemas_accessible_by_user function to get_schemas_accessible_by_user which is consistent with the get_datasources_accessible_by_user method.

BEFORE/AFTER SCREENSHOTS OR ANIMATED GIF

TEST PLAN

CI.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• Has associated issue:
• Changes UI
• Requires DB Migration.
• Confirm DB Migration upgrade and downgrade tested.
• Introduces new feature or API
• Removes existing feature or API

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #10030 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master   #10030   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   70.47%   70.47%           
=======================================
  Files         583      583           
  Lines       31019    31019           
  Branches     3175     3175           
=======================================
  Hits        21861    21861           
  Misses       9049     9049           
  Partials      109      109           

Flag	Coverage Δ
#cypress	53.92% <ø> (ø)
#javascript	59.41% <ø> (ø)
#python	70.06% <50.00%> (ø)

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
superset/views/database/forms.py	90.69% <0.00%> (ø)
superset/views/core.py	76.27% <50.00%> (ø)
superset/security/manager.py	89.04% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update e17da58...a44063b. Read the comment docs.

[etr2460]

Since the security manager is a somewhat public API (we recommend people override this as necessary) should we add a line to UPDATING.md noting the function name change?

[villebro]

Should we leave schemas_accessible_by_user as an alias for a version or two with a deprecation warning?

[john-bodley]

@villebro I think that's generally a good idea however for #10031 (which is similar) there's actually name conflicts due the renaming and thus it is not viable to keep both the old and new forms.

[villebro]

Ok that makes sense. Adding a comment about this being necessary partly due to name conflicts might add context for admins (completely optional).