Cubeviz to use wcs1d-fits from specutils to write out fitted cube

[pllim]

Description

This pull request is to remove the unreleased jdaviz-cube writer we added in #2012 and use the improved specutils wcs1d-fits writer that Derek modifed in astropy/specutils#1009 .

Close #2044

Blocked by

• wcs1d-fits encounters error with bool mask, so need Support write and read of boolean masks in wcs1d-fits astropy/specutils#1051
• Update specutils pin again when Support write and read of boolean masks in wcs1d-fits astropy/specutils#1051 is released (>1.10)
• Fix and extend wcs1d-fits loader for multi-D WCS astropy/specutils#1009 and the fix above need to be released and then we have to update minversion pin for specutils.
• If this PR does not make it to jdaviz v3.4, we also need to modify change log (and doc?) to withdraw a released feature.

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)?

[dhomeier]

@pllim astropy/specutils#1051 has now passed all tests, so you might try it for the bool mask here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.88%. Comparing base (a126296) to head (9d46233).
Report is 148 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2094      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.93%   88.88%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         112      112              
  Lines       17411    17391      -20     
==========================================
- Hits        15485    15458      -27     
- Misses       1926     1933       +7     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[pllim]

I think at long last, this PR is finally ready because upstream fix has been released since.

[pllim]

Not sure why RTD status report is stuck (PR too old? lol) but the build was successful: https://readthedocs.org/projects/jdaviz/builds/25146976/

[rosteen]

Hm, this works for writing out a model fit cube, but interestingly, it fails if you try to write out the original data cube that was loaded into Cubeviz (at least that's what I'm seeing with the example notebook). That also fails to write on main with format="jdaviz-cube" though, and based on the title of this PR is maybe out of scope.

[pllim]

it fails if you try to write out the original data cube that was loaded into Cubeviz

Pretty sure that was a separate ticket. I don't think we support complete I/O roundtripping anywhere yet.

[rosteen]

it fails if you try to write out the original data cube that was loaded into Cubeviz

Pretty sure that was a separate ticket. I don't think we support complete I/O roundtripping anywhere yet.

In that case I'll go ahead and approve this.

[pllim]

Rebased to see if RTD would report back this time. Thanks for the review!