If you swab from a raccoon dog, you'll get raccoon dog DNA. If you swab from a bat, you'll get bat DNA. I suppose that might be surprising to some.If the codes were different, you might have a point.
That doesn't mean that the raccoon dog was the origin of the virus. All it means is that they swabbed a dog which had the virus and, shockingly, was a dog. It also doesn't establish from which animal the dog contracted the virus, nor does it establish that other animal's origin point. Also, point of order, bats are mammals. So to say, "Well, this is the mammal it came from!" either shows a lack of education (on the part of the authorities, I'm not saying you made that particular claim) or disingenuousness.
Nothing in the article concretely shuts down the virology lab... as being the origin of a virus. Which virology labs tend to have a surplus of, which is kinda obvious. Yes, obviously the outbreak among humans started in the wet markets. But there's no concrete evidence that the wet markets were the virus's origin. If they were, there'd have been simultaneous outbreaks in wet markets other than the ones in Wuhan. Where the virology lab is.