Update WCS calculations for the GUIDING modes

[stscieisenhamer]

Resolves JP-2658

This PR addresses an issue where the appropriate algorithms to calculation the CRPIX* values of the WCS for the various GUIDING exposures was not used.

Checklist for maintainers

• [x] added entry in CHANGES.rst within the relevant release section
• [x] updated or added relevant tests
• [ ] updated relevant documentation
• [x] added relevant milestone
• [x] added relevant label(s)
• [ ] ran regression tests, post a link to the Jenkins job below. How to run regression tests on a PR
• [ ] Make sure the JIRA ticket is resolved properly

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #6975 (b571956) into master (6dc2615) will decrease coverage by 27.49%. The diff coverage is 15.52%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6975       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   79.27%   51.77%   -27.50%     
===========================================
  Files         414      412        -2     
  Lines       37478    37542       +64     
===========================================
- Hits        29709    19436    -10273     
- Misses       7769    18106    +10337     

Flag	Coverage Δ
nightly	?
unit	51.77% <15.52%> (-1.35%)	:arrow_down:

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
jwst/lib/engdb_mast.py	38.52% <0.00%> (ø)
jwst/lib/v1_calculate.py	26.08% <0.00%> (-73.92%)	:arrow_down:
jwst/lib/siafdb.py	23.86% <10.90%> (-65.57%)	:arrow_down:
jwst/lib/set_telescope_pointing.py	21.41% <18.04%> (-66.52%)	:arrow_down:
jwst/cube_build/cube_internal_cal.py	8.33% <0.00%> (-91.67%)	:arrow_down:
jwst/cube_build/blot_cube_build.py	8.64% <0.00%> (-90.28%)	:arrow_down:
jwst/ami/ami_average.py	10.41% <0.00%> (-85.42%)	:arrow_down:
jwst/extract_1d/soss_extract/soss_centroids.py	14.28% <0.00%> (-78.58%)	:arrow_down:
jwst/wfss_contam/wfss_contam.py	10.98% <0.00%> (-78.03%)	:arrow_down:
jwst/pipeline/calwebb_ami3.py	19.23% <0.00%> (-76.93%)	:arrow_down:
... and 167 more

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

[drlaw1558]

This is a pretty enormous PR, I hadn't realized just how much work would be necessary to fix the FGS WCS. Would it be possible to use the corresponding code to reprocess the guider data for a particular Visit and test performance by direct examination of those MAST-like data products?

[stscieisenhamer]

@drlaw1558 it was a surprise all around. If you had not gotten a chance to catch up on your original issue, discussions are still ongoing and, in fact, have been postponed until after next week due to vacations, etc.

So, about testing, yes the code is currently in a "usable" state: The expected calculations will be made. However, the caveats are listed in this gist, which, through my oversight, you were not included in notification of. The one comment about the ID mode can be disregarded; the appropriate documentation was found, though the translation to an actual object location is still unclear.

[nden]

The last update on this was almost a year ago. Is this work/PR still relevant?

[nden]

@stscieisenhamer Is this PR still relevant or was the issue resolved in the latest patch?

[stscieisenhamer]

This is still relevant. FGS team members were to answer some questions, but I have had no feedback on that yet. Will make it a point to ping them.

[stscieisenhamer]

Due to massive rebase, this PR has been closed. A new one will be opened.