io.misc.asdf: skip modeling doctest that requires removed features in asdf (v5.3.x)

[braingram]

Description

2 modeling doctests (like the following):

astropy/docs/modeling/models.rst

Lines 947 to 952 in eec0697

	>>> from asdf import AsdfFile
	>>> from astropy.modeling import models
	>>> rotation = models.Rotation2D(angle=23.7)
	>>> f = AsdfFile()
	>>> f.tree['model'] = rotation
	>>> f.write_to('rotation.asdf')

should have been skipped in #14516

It has since been updated in main: #14668

and requires a manual backport to fix this failing test as described:
#14795

[github-actions]

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see "When to rebase and squash commits".
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• Is a milestone set? Milestone must be set but we cannot check for it on Actions; do not let the green checkmark fool you.
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

[github-actions]

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

[braingram]

It appears I do not have the ability to set labels so could not follow
Apply "skip-basebranch-check" label **before** you open the PR!
@pllim Does this need to be applied before the PR is brought out of draft or is it already too late for this PR?

[WilliamJamieson]

Close-reopen for the skip-basebranch-check to become effective.

[pllim]

I don't think this is supported. Would be nice if it does though. Let's see...

[braingram]

modeling passed: https://github.com/astropy/astropy/actions/runs/4929120049/jobs/8808352373?pr=14797#step:10:1646

However coodinates index.rst failed:

346 .. doctest-remote-data::
347 
348     >>> EarthLocation.of_address('1002 Holy Grail Court, St. Louis, MO')  # doctest: +FLOAT_CMP
349     <EarthLocation (-26769.86528679, -4997007.71191864, 3950273.57633915) m>
350     >>> EarthLocation.of_address('Danbury, CT')  # doctest: +FLOAT_CMP
Expected:
    <EarthLocation (1362610.66896362, -4590755.48088484, 4198817.69912853) m>
Got:
    <EarthLocation (1364606.6451165, -4593292.9428273, 4195415.93695139) m>

/home/runner/work/astropy/astropy/docs/coordinates/index.rst:350: DocTestFailure

Is this a known issue?

[braingram]

Testing 5.2.2 I get the 'Got' result:

In [22]: import astropy.coordinates

In [23]: astropy.coordinates.EarthLocation.of_address('Danbury, CT')
Out[23]: <EarthLocation (1364606.6451165, -4593292.9428273, 4195415.93695139) m>

In [24]: astropy.__version__
Out[24]: '5.2.2'

Did someone move Danbury?

[pllim]

The EarthLocation look-up been flaky lately, just ignore it.

[pllim]

@saimn and @bsipocz , I didn't know we can specify version comparison in .. doctest-requires::. When did this happen? 😸

[bsipocz]

Not sure(I'm afk), is it not listed in the changelog?

[pllim]

I didn't comb through the change log. Maybe I should. The README didn't mention.

[bsipocz]

Would you mind opening a quick PR then? We should be more diligent with requiring the readme updates with the enhancements, but afaik we're not insistent enough

[pllim]

Opened scientific-python/pytest-doctestplus#198

[pllim]

@braingram , are you able to open similar PRs to v5.2.x and v5.0.x ? 🙏

[braingram]

@braingram , are you able to open similar PRs to v5.2.x and v5.0.x ? 🙏

@pllim I opened similar PRs against v5.0.x and v5.2.x. As I am unable to set labels they will require a similar set of steps as @WilliamJamieson performed on this PR.

[pllim]

Thanks!