RCAL-698: fix TweakReg to allow for Roman datamodels as input

[mairanteodoro]

Resolves RCAL-698

This PR addresses code refactoring the TweakRegStep to allow Roman datamodels to be passed in to TweakReg.

Regression test results
All regression tests are successful (ran on Mar 4th): https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/job/RT/job/Roman-Developers-Pull-Requests/624/

Checklist

• added entry in CHANGES.rst under the corresponding subsection
• updated relevant tests
• updated relevant documentation
• updated relevant milestone(s)
• added relevant label(s)
• ran regression tests, post a link to the Jenkins job below. How to run regression tests on a PR

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 76.72%. Comparing base (046faae) to head (795f99d).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 795f99d differs from pull request most recent head 187b864. Consider uploading reports for the commit 187b864 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1089      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   76.73%   76.72%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         105      105              
  Lines        7054     7054              
==========================================
- Hits         5413     5412       -1     
- Misses       1641     1642       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
nightly	62.72% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️	Carriedforward from f354e98

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

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

[ddavis-stsci]

I'm not sure that this is doing what we need. It does accept a model container but it seems to run tweakreg on each input in a sequence.

I thought that the plan is to run tweakreg on all the input files in the association as a group so that the final solution is more accurate.

[mairanteodoro]

I'm not sure that this is doing what we need. It does accept a model container but it seems to run tweakreg on each input in a sequence.

I thought that the plan is to run tweakreg on all the input files in the association as a group so that the final solution is more accurate.

Ticket RCAL-698 asks for a fix to allow TweakReg to accept a Roman datamodel as input. Below is an excerpt from the description section of the ticket:

If you pass a ModelContainer, an association filename, or a list of Roman datamodels (or ASDF files), then TweakReg will process everything just as you mentioned. This PR addresses only what's in the ticket.

[nden]

I left inline questions that I think need to be answered. A bit more generally the input/output support in Tweakreg needs to be

1. Association file (string) in a Python session and on the command line --> returns a ModelContainer (saves files to disk)
2. A list of file names or datamodels (from Python) --> returns a ModelContainer (saves files to disk)
3. A ModelContainer --> returns a ModelContainer (saves files to disk)
4. Single image (string filename and datamodel) in Python and cmd --> returns single image (saved to disk)

Some of these won't work and will need added support in datamodels but that can be added in a different PR. For example opening an association file with datamodels.open fails for me.

[mairanteodoro]

I left inline questions that I think need to be answered.

Done.

A bit more generally the input/output support in Tweakreg needs to be

1. Association file (string) in a Python session and on the command line --> returns a ModelContainer (saves files to disk)
2. A list of file names or datamodels (from Python) --> returns a ModelContainer (saves files to disk)
3. A ModelContainer --> returns a ModelContainer (saves files to disk)
4. Single image (string filename and datamodel) in Python and cmd --> returns single image (saved to disk)

Items 1, 2, and 3 are currently supported. As you mentioned, we can implement item 4 later on.

[nden]

We are advertising using Step.call because this guarantees using all parameters and avoids confusion. The examples should read

 output = TweakRegStep.call(...)

As written they use Step.run which instantiates a new step and ignores any parameters users pass.

[nden]

Yes, this is the correct signature to use.

[nden]

I am approving the PR but the documentation needs to be fixed before merging.
And it needs another regression test run.

[mairanteodoro]

I am approving the PR but the documentation needs to be fixed before merging. And it needs another regression test run.

Done and done.