RCAL-942: Remove Units from Reference File Datamodels

[PaulHuwe]

Resolves RCAL-942

Closes #1472

This PR removes units from reference file datamodels.

Tasks

• request a review from someone specific, to avoid making the maintainers review every PR
• add a build milestone, i.e. 24Q4_B15 (use the latest build if not sure)
• Does this PR change user-facing code / API? (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)
  • update or add relevant tests
  • update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page
  • start a regression test and include a link to the running job (click here for instructions)
    • Do truth files need to be updated ("okified")?
      • after the reviewer has approved these changes, run okify_regtests to update the truth files
• if a JIRA ticket exists, make sure it is resolved properly

news fragment change types...

• changes/<PR#>.general.rst: infrastructure or miscellaneous change
• changes/<PR#>.docs.rst
• changes/<PR#>.stpipe.rst
• changes/<PR#>.associations.rst
• changes/<PR#>.scripts.rst
• changes/<PR#>.mosaic_pipeline.rst
• changes/<PR#>.patch_match.rst

steps

• changes/<PR#>.dq_init.rst
• changes/<PR#>.saturation.rst
• changes/<PR#>.refpix.rst
• changes/<PR#>.linearity.rst
• changes/<PR#>.dark_current.rst
• changes/<PR#>.jump_detection.rst
• changes/<PR#>.ramp_fitting.rst
• changes/<PR#>.assign_wcs.rst
• changes/<PR#>.flatfield.rst
• changes/<PR#>.photom.rst
• changes/<PR#>.flux.rst
• changes/<PR#>.source_detection.rst
• changes/<PR#>.tweakreg.rst
• changes/<PR#>.skymatch.rst
• changes/<PR#>.outlier_detection.rst
• changes/<PR#>.resample.rst
• changes/<PR#>.source_catalog.rst

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 28.59%. Comparing base (c06bdec) to head (8b86bed).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
romancal/photom/photom.py	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
romancal/ramp_fitting/ramp_fit_step.py	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
romancal/dark_current/dark_current_step.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
romancal/saturation/saturation.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1474      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   28.60%   28.59%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         112      112              
  Lines        7576     7576              
==========================================
- Hits         2167     2166       -1     
- Misses       5409     5410       +1     

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

[schlafly]

That looks good. Hopefully we will hear this afternoon on the status of making new unit-free ref files.

[PaulHuwe]

As expected, there are some failing regression files that need new reference files:
https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/11490929350/job/31982499454

[schlafly]

This looks good. I left one comment about a stray comment inline. Let's merge once regression tests are passing with the new files.

[mairanteodoro]

Looks good to me!

[nden]

Latest regression tests:
https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/12847539098

They show that the photom schema was changed so that the conversion factors are numbers but the photom files were not updated. I think it can go either way - either change the reference files or change the code in romancal. Was their a decision about the photom files? @PaulHuwe @schlafly @rcosenti-stsci

[schlafly]

Our intent was to remove the units from the photom files as well (no units in files to make them more archival). That would mean that @rcosenti-stsci would need to resubmit these files. I think that the schema looks correct and so this would not require any more work on the CRDS / release end. @PaulHuwe , @nden , does that match what you're thinking?

[schlafly]

I looked at the changes here again and they all look good. I am toying with the idea of merging it ~now so that at least unit tests start working again, in which case @PaulHuwe would follow up with a new PR if the regression tests require more work. Any reason not to do that?

[schlafly]

Is there an advantage to this outside of a release? Should we point this back and the git version of roman_datamodels?

[WilliamJamieson]

This will be changed by as soon as a rad/rdm change is made. I'd only keep this as is if we plan on making a romancal release immediately with these changes.