Congratulations on your first Pull Request and welcome to the Apache Airflow community! If you have any issues or are unsure about any anything please check our Contribution Guide (https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.rst)
Here are some useful points:

• Pay attention to the quality of your code (ruff, mypy and type annotations). Our pre-commits will help you with that.
• In case of a new feature add useful documentation (in docstrings or in docs/ directory). Adding a new operator? Check this short guide Consider adding an example DAG that shows how users should use it.
• Consider using Breeze environment for testing locally, it's a heavy docker but it ships with a working Airflow and a lot of integrations.
• Be patient and persistent. It might take some time to get a review or get the final approval from Committers.
• Please follow ASF Code of Conduct for all communication including (but not limited to) comments on Pull Requests, Mailing list and Slack.
• Be sure to read the Airflow Coding style.
  Apache Airflow is a community-driven project and together we are making it better 🚀.
  In case of doubts contact the developers at:
  Mailing List: [email protected]
  Slack: https://s.apache.org/airflow-slack

You need to fix the static checks. However, when I looked at it - maybe you might want to make a better and more future-proof fix ?

It should be possible to make the check only for extra and still allow the Operator's spark_binary to be anything. Currently we check it in __init__ of the hook - but if we check it where extra.get("spark-binary", "spark-submit") is called (extracting that to a method) - then we could allow any spark_binary to be passed as operator's parameter.

The security issue was only about the "extra" (because it could be changed via the UI when defining connection) - but there is no problem with passing any binary via Operator in the DAG code.

make the check only for extra

I like this idea, but might not have time to follow up to make a more extensive change for this atm. I'll ping one of my teammates, but I'm not sure if they'll have the time either.

Thanks!

I'll ping one of my teammates, but I'm not sure if they'll have the time either.

They are interested in making a more generic change, but won't have time in the immediate future to do so. If you are okay with it, it would be useful to merge this as is now, and do the generic change in a future PR.

Awesome work, congrats on your first merged pull request!

Added #30213 to allow passing spark binary via hook.