revert #314 and #322

[braingram]

#314 and #322 are causing jwst test failures. This PR reverts #314 and #322 to allow ongoing jwst and stcal work to be tested.

Tasks

• update or add relevant tests
• update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page
• Does this PR change any API used downstream? (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)
  • run regression tests with this branch installed ("git+https://github.com/<fork>/stcal@<branch>")
    • jwst regression test
    • romancal regression test

news fragment change types...

• changes/<PR#>.apichange.rst: change to public API
• changes/<PR#>.bugfix.rst: fixes an issue
• changes/<PR#>.general.rst: infrastructure or miscellaneous change

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.88%. Comparing base (728b877) to head (9364f29).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #323       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   29.56%   86.88%   +57.32%     
===========================================
  Files          37       49       +12     
  Lines        8332     8937      +605     
===========================================
+ Hits         2463     7765     +5302     
+ Misses       5869     1172     -4697     

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

Downstream failures

[braingram]

Downstream tests are failing since the jwst/romancal downstream had/has stcal@main as a dependency which has gwcs@master as a dependency. This caused gwcs@master to be installed (even though it's not a dependency in this PR) which is the root of the changes leading to test failures. I'm confident (but not certain) that if this PR is merged into stcal@main the tests would no longer pick up gwcs@master and not fail. This does highlight an issue with our test setup here and makes it unsuitable for judging this PR.