Improve Imviz parser for Roman-like ASDF files

[bmorris3]

Description

There are lots of "Roman-like" ASDF files that do not pass validation by roman_datamodels, but currently on main, attempting to parse a file that cannot be fully parsed by roman_datamodels raises an error.

A minimal "Roman-like" image in an ASDF file could be constructed with:

import asdf
import numpy as np

tree = {
    'roman': {
        'data': np.arange(16).reshape((4, 4)),
    },
}

af = asdf.AsdfFile(tree=tree)

If the above ASDF file is passed to roman_datamodels, an error is raised, even though it's pretty clear that we could parse the data node as an image:

>>> import roman_datamodels.datamodels as rdd
>>> rdd.open(af)
TypeError: Unknown datamodel type: <class 'dict'>

This PR allows the parser to use asdf to look for the usual Roman tree structure in files ending in ".asdf", even when roman_datamodels can't parse the file. This allows non-standard Roman-like data products to be loaded.

I say "Roman-like" because this parser is still looking for a top-level node called "roman", which is standard in Roman data products. If that node isn't there, this parser will raise an error. If we need in the future, we can revise this parser logic to accept the preferred top-level node as a kwarg.

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

Patch coverage: 72.91% and project coverage change: +0.08% 🎉

Comparison is base (2bb043a) 90.66% compared to head (33cd9b0) 90.74%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2351      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.66%   90.74%   +0.08%     
==========================================
  Files         152      153       +1     
  Lines       17434    17470      +36     
==========================================
+ Hits        15807    15854      +47     
+ Misses       1627     1616      -11     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
jdaviz/configs/imviz/tests/test_parser_roman.py	12.50% <0.00%> (+1.38%)	⬆️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/plugins/parsers.py	87.36% <66.66%> (-1.12%)	⬇️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/tests/test_parser.py	99.45% <66.66%> (+0.26%)	⬆️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/tests/test_parser_asdf.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

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

[pllim]

try-except isn't pretty but good enough for Roman.

[pllim]

Since this touches Roman, I also enabled the Roman cron jobs here. Let's see... 🤞

[pllim]

Is the Roman job failure related? I cannot tell. https://github.com/spacetelescope/jdaviz/actions/runs/5811566248/job/15755086033?pr=2351

[bmorris3]

@pllim that's likely from the latest release of roman_datamodels. Bumping the pin and trying again.

[bmorris3]

Bumping the roman_datamodels pin didn't fix the issue because the package data ASDF file also needed to be updated for the latest roman_datamodels pin. This was also the case in #2302.

To avoid this problem occurring indefinitely into the future, I've made a pytest fixture to generate this test data for tests where it's needed in c44067e.

[pllim]

Putting a skipif in a fixture is too confusing. If you want a test to skip, it is more explicit to put skipif on the test function.

If create_wfi_image_model needs Roman datamodels, then maybe have this return None if that package isn't installed with a if-else?

[pllim]

Alternately, you can move all the stuff that needs Roman data models into a special test module and use pytest.importorskip.

[bmorris3]

As of 8a12ef8, we do both. There's a roman_datamodels-specific test in jdaviz/configs/imviz/tests/test_parser_roman.py that uses importorskip, and now the fixture returns None unless roman_datamodels is available.

[pllim]

Diff LGTM now but I want to see the Roman cron job status before approving. Thanks!