Use has_extension rather than deprecated validate_has_extension

[jsignell]

With pystac 1.9 there validate_has_extension is deprecated, so there was a warning cropping up. This seemed like a simpler solution anyways.

[Kirill888]

Thanks for the PR, do you know when has_extension was added, do we need to update lower bound on pystac library for this change?

[Kirill888]

Tests are failing because of this change, I realize that newer version of pystac are more lenient as far as versions of extensions are concerned, but we might need to support older versions for a bit, so can we have that "dodgy check" back?

[jsignell]

On second thought, the "dodgy check" is kind of separate. I can add it back in.

[jsignell]

Thanks for the PR, do you know when has_extension was added, do we need to update lower bound on pystac library for this change?

Yeah it seems like has_extension has been in pystac since 1.0.0, but I take your point about pystac<1.9.0 being less flexible about how it checks for extensions.

Would it make sense to just bump up the floor for min pystac supported by this library?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (138846f) 87.44% compared to head (8de58b0) 87.41%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #134      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    87.44%   87.41%   -0.03%     
===========================================
  Files           19       19              
  Lines         1864     1860       -4     
===========================================
- Hits          1630     1626       -4     
  Misses         234      234              

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

[Kirill888]

thanks