🐛 Fix email sending issue missing "From" field

[GitHK]

What do these changes do?

The "From" field was not found during the sending of the email. Turns out the wrong parameter to parse the pedantic model was used.
This fixes the issue and allows for emails to get sent once again.

Extra:

• Fixes warnings with a test case in director-v2

Related issue/s

• closes Can't send email #2882

How to test

Checklist

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2926 (6fab6cd) into master (be2df27) will increase coverage by 1.2%.
The diff coverage is 83.3%.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master   #2926     +/-   ##
========================================
+ Coverage    78.4%   79.6%   +1.2%     
========================================
  Files         677     677             
  Lines       28230   28231      +1     
  Branches     3282    3282             
========================================
+ Hits        22136   22479    +343     
+ Misses       5346    4992    -354     
- Partials      748     760     +12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integrationtests	65.7% <83.3%> (+4.0%)	⬆️
unittests	75.1% <83.3%> (+<0.1%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...erver/src/simcore_service_webserver/login/utils.py	51.6% <0.0%> (-0.6%)	⬇️
...rver/src/simcore_service_webserver/login/plugin.py	85.7% <100.0%> (ø)
...er/src/simcore_service_webserver/login/settings.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...simcore_service_webserver/projects/project_lock.py	94.7% <0.0%> (-5.3%)	⬇️
...imcore_service_webserver/garbage_collector_core.py	70.5% <0.0%> (-1.0%)	⬇️
...ore_service_director_v2/utils/dask_client_utils.py	78.2% <0.0%> (-0.9%)	⬇️
.../director/src/simcore_service_director/producer.py	62.7% <0.0%> (+0.6%)	⬆️
...e_service_director_v2/modules/dask_clients_pool.py	93.9% <0.0%> (+1.5%)	⬆️
...rector_v2/modules/comp_scheduler/base_scheduler.py	88.6% <0.0%> (+1.8%)	⬆️
...service_director_v2/api/routes/dynamic_services.py	88.2% <0.0%> (+2.1%)	⬆️
... and 18 more

[sanderegg]

marvelous

[sanderegg]

Example?? really? is there no better name? 🤣

[pcrespov]

true ..

[sanderegg]

is the Field(...) really needed?

[pcrespov]

@sanderegg yes, this way the field is required, which is what will solve the bug we had.

Check

osparc-simcore/packages/settings-library/tests/test__pydantic_settings.py

Line 42 in bee16a3

class Settings(BaseSettings):

as a reminder

[GitHK]

Yes, it means that the fields need to be provided even if the provided value is None