Add wcsinfo to multislitmodel schema

[emolter]

Required to merge #710 and see discussion on that PR.

This PR adds wcsinfo to the MultiSlitModel schema. It turns out that we request wcsinfo from MultiSlitModel in the pipeline and it seems it should therefore be part of the expected metadata (and as such get saved with the outputs).

Tasks

• update or add relevant tests
• update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page
• Does this PR change any API used downstream? (if not, label with no-changelog-entry-needed)
  • write news fragment(s) in changes/: echo "changed something" > changes/<PR#>.<changetype>.rst (see below for change types)
  • run jwst regression tests with this branch installed ("git+https://github.com/<fork>/stdatamodels@<branch>")

news fragment change types...

• changes/<PR#>.feature.rst: new feature
• changes/<PR#>.bugfix.rst: fixes an issue
• changes/<PR#>.doc.rst: documentation change
• changes/<PR#>.removal.rst: deprecation or removal of public API
• changes/<PR#>.misc.rst: infrastructure or miscellaneous change

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.33%. Comparing base (75c2006) to head (8a459b1).
⚠️ Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #712   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.32%   90.33%           
=======================================
  Files          99       99           
  Lines        4641     4644    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits         4192     4195    +3     
  Misses        449      449           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[emolter]

https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/24156781396

There is a lot of new metadata for this change. I wonder if we are generally ok with that or not.

[melanieclarke]

https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/24156781396

There is a lot of new metadata for this change. I wonder if we are generally ok with that or not.

The NIRSpec spec2 changes look okay – the only difference is in some empty comment-style headers.

But it looks like this is now writing an imaging-type FITS WCS to WFSS and NIRCam DHS exposures, which isn’t right. That will probably need explicit handling.

[melanieclarke]

I think this set looks good, except possibly for the SYS keywords. RADESYS, VELOSYS, and SPECSYS are FITS WCS keywords. I don't think they'd do any harm on their own, but they shouldn't be needed, detached from any other WCS keywords.

[emolter]

ok, thanks. I left them in because they do exist already in the NIRSpec multislitmodel headers, so removing them would (along with the proposed model.update changes) lead to them no longer being there. I assume based on your comment we are ok with that.

[melanieclarke]

ok, thanks. I left them in because they do exist already in the NIRSpec multislitmodel headers, so removing them would (along with the proposed model.update changes) lead to them no longer being there. I assume based on your comment we are ok with that.

Oh, good to know, thanks. If they're there currently, let's keep them just in case.

[emolter]

spacetelescope/jwst#10464 handles this differently, moving relevant metadata into the slits of the multislitmodel instead of updating the multislitmodel schema.