Make mosviz visibility fallback more robust

[duytnguyendtn]

Description

Hi again... 😅

So #1798 didn't quite do what @kecnry and I were expecting, so I'm going to reintroduce the original solution I was proposing. After a much thorough second lookthrough, I'm further convinced this is the correct logic we want.

The reason why the missing row elements were visible was because the mosviz visibility fallback for when the object's row is None was to return !returnExtraItems. This flag is intended for the "show/hide all other data" dropdown. Effectively, if it the row information was missing, it would always show the item as visible.

Instead, I propose any data without a row should follow the same visibility rules of whether the user manually visualizes the dataset or not. FWIW, this PR brings the mosviz visibility logic in line with the default fallback:

jdaviz/jdaviz/components/viewer_data_select.vue

Lines 173 to 174 in 105de83

	// for any situation not covered above, default to showing the entry
	return this.dataItemInViewer(item, returnExtraItems)

As penance, I won't be marking this one as trivial 😅

Change log entry

• Is a change log needed? If yes, is it added to CHANGES.rst? If you want to avoid merge conflicts,
  list the proposed change log here for review and add to CHANGES.rst before merge. If no, maintainer
  should add a no-changelog-entry-needed label.

Checklist for package maintainer(s)

This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainer(s) who will review this pull request of some common things to look for. This list is not exhaustive.

• Are two approvals required? Branch protection rule does not check for the second approval. If a second approval is not necessary, please apply the trivial label.
• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals? Also manually run the affected example notebooks, if necessary.
• Do the proposed changes follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Did the CI pass? If not, are the failures related?
• Is a milestone set? Set this to bugfix milestone if this is a bug fix and needs to be released ASAP; otherwise, set this to the next major release milestone.
• After merge, any internal documentations need updating (e.g., JIRA, Innerspace)?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 88.06% // Head: 88.04% // Decreases project coverage by -0.01% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (ba21d1a) compared to base (914c940).
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

❗ Current head ba21d1a differs from pull request most recent head d7509c7. Consider uploading reports for the commit d7509c7 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1808      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.06%   88.04%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          95       95              
  Lines       10204    10197       -7     
==========================================
- Hits         8986     8978       -8     
- Misses       1218     1219       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
jdaviz/core/template_mixin.py	92.26% <0.00%> (-0.18%)	⬇️
...nfigs/default/plugins/plot_options/plot_options.py	98.05% <0.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[javerbukh]

Seems to work as intended now. Tried adding data to the viewer, selecting different rows, removing data from viewer, selecting data again, and no problems. Nice!

[duytnguyendtn]

Thanks for the reviews! Did a squash and rebase; will merge after the tests pass