JP-2581: fix to allow multiprocessing for jump

[cshanahan1]

Fixes an issue in jump where the input gdq arrays were being modified which was causing tests to fail in JWST when the step was being run in multiprocessing mode. If multiple processes are run, the gdq/data arrays are copied before find_crs and not again within the function (which in this mode is running on slices).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #87 (68a26d5) into main (ff72cc1) will decrease coverage by 17.62%.
The diff coverage is 14.28%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #87       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   89.29%   71.66%   -17.63%     
===========================================
  Files          16       16               
  Lines        2419     2432       +13     
===========================================
- Hits         2160     1743      -417     
- Misses        259      689      +430     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/stcal/jump/jump.py	12.67% <0.00%> (-55.66%)	⬇️
src/stcal/jump/twopoint_difference.py	77.68% <75.00%> (-21.48%)	⬇️
src/stcal/dynamicdq.py	27.27% <0.00%> (-72.73%)	⬇️
src/stcal/jump/constants.py	28.57% <0.00%> (-71.43%)	⬇️
src/stcal/ramp_fitting/ramp_fit.py	51.68% <0.00%> (-44.95%)	⬇️
src/stcal/dark_current/dark_class.py	69.04% <0.00%> (-30.96%)	⬇️
src/stcal/ramp_fitting/ols_fit.py	72.78% <0.00%> (-21.12%)	⬇️
src/stcal/ramp_fitting/utils.py	80.59% <0.00%> (-17.92%)	⬇️
... and 2 more

---

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 ff72cc1...68a26d5. Read the comment docs.

[hbushouse]

Looks good now.

Needs a change log entry and should we worry about the failing romancal CI test? Or is that due to unrelated changes in the function signatures from saturation step updates?

[cshanahan1]

@hbushouse I just opened a PR in jwst to fix some of the tests there and point to this branch. once that's approved i'll change the stcal version back so it can be merged

[nden]

@cshanahan1 Do we need to add the same parameter to romancal? If so please submit a PR.

[hbushouse]

Are we OK to merge this now on the stcal side, so that we can get a new release out, before we merge things on the jwst side?

[cshanahan1]

@hbushouse i think so. im working on getting the roman tests to pass now but im fairly certain it's just a matter of adding the new parameter there and wont require any more changes here