Fix stacklevel in warnings.warn into the providers

[Taragolis]

During check warnings which generated in our CI I've found that time to time we use stacklevel=1 or even do not define it at all. This make it harder to find where actual call is happen.

airflow/models/baseoperator.py:439: [W0513(warning), ] The `GoogleAnalyticsListAccountsOperator` operator is deprecated, please use `GoogleAnalyticsAdminListAccountsOperator` instead.
airflow/models/baseoperator.py:439: [W0513(warning), ] The `GoogleAnalyticsGetAdsLinkOperator` operator is deprecated, please use `GoogleAnalyticsAdminGetGoogleAdsLinkOperator` instead.
airflow/models/baseoperator.py:439: [W0513(warning), ] The `GoogleAnalyticsRetrieveAdsLinksListOperator` operator is deprecated, please use `GoogleAnalyticsAdminListGoogleAdsLinksOperator` instead.
airflow/models/baseoperator.py:439: [W0513(warning), ] The `GoogleAnalyticsDataImportUploadOperator` operator is deprecated, please use `GoogleAnalyticsAdminCreateDataStreamOperator` instead.
airflow/models/baseoperator.py:439: [W0513(warning), ] The `GoogleAnalyticsDeletePreviousDataUploadsOperator` operator is deprecated, please use `GoogleAnalyticsAdminDeleteDataStreamOperator` instead.

There is rule B028 exists into the ruff for validate missing stacklevel into the code, however nothing it could do with explicit stacklevel=1

There is additional changes exists in warnings, which I point into the separate discussions

---

^ Add meaningful description above
Read the Pull Request Guidelines for more information.
In case of fundamental code changes, an Airflow Improvement Proposal (AIP) is needed.
In case of a new dependency, check compliance with the ASF 3rd Party License Policy.
In case of backwards incompatible changes please leave a note in a newsfragment file, named {pr_number}.significant.rst or {issue_number}.significant.rst, in newsfragments.

[potiuk]

Nice. I was wondering if there is a way to somehow automate it - or maybe just flag and require to make a deliberate decision when you reais exception in the provider?

[Taragolis]

Missing stacklevel could be prohibited resolved by https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/no-explicit-stacklevel/ by I do not any way how to ban stacklevel=1 rather than write something custom.

stacklevel=1 in most cases it useless level, because it point to exact place where it raised rather than where it called.

We could add B028 to ruff config as soon as we resolve this PR, #36834 and make changes in core