JP-2645 - Snowball and shower flagging in Jump

[mwregan2]

Resolves JP-2645

Closes #

This PR addresses ...

Checklist

• added entry in CHANGES.rst (either in Bug Fixes or Changes to API)
• updated relevant tests
• updated relevant documentation
• updated relevant milestone(s)
• added relevant label(s)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 72.33% // Head: 0.00% // Decreases project coverage by -72.33% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (c0e2fae) compared to base (57d65cd).
Patch coverage: 0.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

❗ Current head c0e2fae differs from pull request most recent head 5eba1e1. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5eba1e1 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #118       +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.33%   0.00%   -72.34%     
==========================================
  Files          15      15               
  Lines        2534    2622       +88     
==========================================
- Hits         1833       0     -1833     
- Misses        701    2622     +1921     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/stcal/jump/jump.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-11.85%)	⬇️
src/stcal/jump/twopoint_difference.py	0.00% <ø> (-80.30%)	⬇️
src/stcal/basic_utils.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
src/stcal/linearity/linearity.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
src/stcal/saturation/saturation.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-98.22%)	⬇️
src/stcal/dqflags.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-92.31%)	⬇️
src/stcal/ramp_fitting/utils.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-85.09%)	⬇️
src/stcal/dark_current/dark_sub.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-81.97%)	⬇️
src/stcal/ramp_fitting/ols_fit.py	0.00% <0.00%> (-72.07%)	⬇️
... and 7 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[hbushouse]

Looks good overall. Just a few minor comments/corrections.

[hbushouse]

I assume that docs on the jwst side will be updated to include info about these new capabilities.

[hbushouse]

@ddavis-stsci Can you (or a Roman designee) review this for compatibility with Roman pipeline use?

[ddavis-stsci]

This passes the roman regression tests (https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/me/my-views/view/all/job/RT/job/Roman-devdeps/135/) so I don't see a problem with it.

[cshanahan1]

lgtm so far, i am going to test it out on some data before i hit approve just to get a better idea of how this works

[hbushouse]

OK, I think it all looks good to me now.

[hbushouse]

@cshanahan1 have you had a chance to do any testing?

[cshanahan1]

@hbushouse yes, will finish that up and add approval + review on corresponding jwst pr

[cshanahan1]

line 348 should be changed, a simple subtraction might cause issues in some cases, but mike has tested this as-is and its fine for now.