move build configuration into `pyproject.toml`

[zacharyburnett]

Description

setuptools now supports the [project] table, which is defined by PEP621.

Additionally, setuptools now supports its own entry in pyproject.toml called [tool.setuptools] (https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/1688, https://setuptools.pypa.io/en/latest/userguide/pyproject_config.html#setuptools-specific-configuration); however, it comes with the following disclaimer:

Support for declaring configurations not standardized by PEP 621 (i.e. the [tool.setuptools] table), is still in beta stage and might change in future releases.

Support for the tool.setuptools table will likely be in beta until toml is natively supported with the release of Python 3.11.

Given this, we can attempt to consolidate the build configuration into a single pyproject.toml file that can possibly be read by other build systems in the future.

Checklist

• [x] Tests
• [ ] Documentation
• [x] Change log
• [ ] Milestone
• [ ] Label(s)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (3cf897a) 75.42% compared to head (bd80933) 75.42%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #6847   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   75.42%   75.42%           
=======================================
  Files         464      464           
  Lines       37938    37936    -2     
=======================================
  Hits        28615    28615           
+ Misses       9323     9321    -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
nightly	77.37% <ø> (+<0.01%)	:arrow_up:	Carriedforward from 9a73e53

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

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[zacharyburnett]

there's an issue with the package data so I will convert this back to draft for now

[zacharyburnett]

regression tests running at https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/blue/organizations/jenkins/RT%2FJWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/detail/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/639/pipeline

[zacharyburnett]

rebased against recent dependency changes - running regression tests at https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/blue/organizations/jenkins/RT%2FJWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/detail/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/642/pipeline

[zacharyburnett]

running another regression test against the new release: https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/blue/organizations/jenkins/RT%2FJWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/detail/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/661/pipeline

[zacharyburnett]

The failures at https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/blue/organizations/jenkins/RT%2FJWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/detail/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/661/pipeline/198/#step-199-log-145 seem to not be related to the package build changes in this PR; @hbushouse are these expected / acceptable failures?

[hbushouse]

The failures at https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/blue/organizations/jenkins/RT%2FJWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/detail/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/661/pipeline/198/#step-199-log-145 seem to not be related to the package build changes in this PR; @hbushouse are these expected / acceptable failures?

The 3 failures for miri dark and dq_init are due to the use of stdatamodels/master, which has a change that's currently incompatible with jwst/master. The 2 from tweakreg/tests/test_amutils are a mystery to me. Never seen those before and the test module hasn't been updated in 2 years. May need @mcara to help with some insight?

[mcara]

Maybe the test should be just re-run. I cloned @zacharyburnett branch and run tests locally and I cannot reproduce this error locally.

[mcara]

I started another run: https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/job/RT/job/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/666/

[hbushouse]

I started another run: https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/job/RT/job/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/666/

That latest run no longer shows the tweakreg failures, so it must've been a fluke.

[mcara]

I started another run: https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/job/RT/job/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/666/

That latest run no longer shows the tweakreg failures, so it must've been a fluke.

It could be because of the RT build number

[zacharyburnett]

we can test the effect of this PR on the build after #7912 is merged

[zacharyburnett]

it looks like the tests all pass here (except for the lint check which should be resolved by #8111 / #8112), so I think this is ready to merge

[zacharyburnett]

great! I'll merge this then, thanks!