test(snowflake): add missing ORDER in column default

[Lee-W]

Description

What is the current behavior?

python-sdk/tests_integration/databases/test_snowflake.py::test_snowflake_create_table_with_columns fails

During testing on https://github.com/astronomer/astro-sdk/pull/2043, I found out there's this snowflake failure in integration test

What is the new behavior?

• python-sdk/tests_integration/databases/test_snowflake.py::test_snowflake_create_table_with_columns passes

Does this introduce a breaking change?

no

Checklist

• [x] Created tests which fail without the change (if possible)
• [ ] Extended the README / documentation, if necessary

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (a7b8819) 90.40% compared to head (83d83ba) 90.35%. Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2044      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.40%   90.35%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          75       75              
  Lines        4324     4323       -1     
  Branches      537      537              
==========================================
- Hits         3909     3906       -3     
- Misses        321      330       +9     
+ Partials       94       87       -7     

Flag	Coverage Δ
PythonSDK	90.35% <100.00%> (-0.05%)	:arrow_down:

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

Files	Coverage Δ
python-sdk/src/astro/sql/operators/cleanup.py	89.16% <100.00%> (-0.92%)	:arrow_down:

... and 12 files with indirect coverage changes

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Lee-W]

@Lee-W, thanks for working on this!

Do you have any idea why "Build and test astro Python SDK / Build-Docs" is breaking? The change is not related to this change, so I'm approving it. It would be great for us to address that in a separate PR

Not quite sure 🤔 Let me rerun it and see how it works

[Lee-W]

seems to fail. might need to handle that in another pr

[tatiana]

@Lee-W it seems there is a conflict ATM - when you have a chance, please, take a look, so we can merge this

[Lee-W]

@Lee-W it seems there is a conflict ATM - when you have a chance, please, take a look, so we can merge this

I just rebased from main and found out it's no longer needed