JP-2581: allow multiprocessing for jump detection

[cshanahan1]

Re-enable multiprocessing for jump detection.

required for spacetelescope/stcal#87

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6845 (d46bf2e) into master (80b0aaf) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head d46bf2e differs from pull request most recent head bcfe929. Consider uploading reports for the commit bcfe929 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #6845   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   79.59%   79.59%           
=======================================
  Files         418      418           
  Lines       37064    37067    +3     
=======================================
+ Hits        29500    29503    +3     
  Misses       7564     7564           

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
nightly	79.57% <100.00%> (ø)		Carriedforward from 80b0aaf
unit	53.65% <ø> (ø)

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
jwst/jump/jump.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 80b0aaf...bcfe929. Read the comment docs.

[hbushouse]

Looks good.

I seem to recall, however, that the code over in stcal allows for integer values of max_cores, so I'm just curious why all of these tests needed to have the value changed from 1 to none?

[cshanahan1]

Looks good.

I seem to recall, however, that the code over in stcal allows for integer values of max_cores, so I'm just curious why all of these tests needed to have the value changed from 1 to none?

I changed it from allowing integer values to just allowing strings. JumpStep spec only allows this to be strings so I just kept that there to avoid confusion.

[hbushouse]

The CI tests all passed, when using your stcal branch. So that can be changed back now and we'll go ahead and merge.

By the way, how does this relate to PR #6815 ? Looks like it duplicates the code updates, but diverges in terms of unit tests.

[cshanahan1]

I just updated the existing unit tests here, it looks like that PR adds a new one.

[hbushouse]

Looks good.
I seem to recall, however, that the code over in stcal allows for integer values of max_cores, so I'm just curious why all of these tests needed to have the value changed from 1 to none?

I changed it from allowing integer values to just allowing strings. JumpStep spec only allows this to be strings so I just kept that there to avoid confusion.

OK, sounds good.