set bounding box to None to avoid layer cropping

[kecnry]

Description

This pull request fixes WCS without fast-approximation resulting in layer cropping for images with GWCS by disabling the bounding box. This also allows the mouseover coordinates to extrapolate across the entire viewer based on the G/WCS of the reference image.

Fixes #1905, fixes #1899, fixes #1509

Change log entry

• Is a change log needed? If yes, is it added to CHANGES.rst? If you want to avoid merge conflicts,
  list the proposed change log here for review and add to CHANGES.rst before merge. If no, maintainer
  should add a no-changelog-entry-needed label.

Checklist for package maintainer(s)

This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainer(s) who will review this pull request of some common things to look for. This list is not exhaustive.

• Are two approvals required? Branch protection rule does not check for the second approval. If a second approval is not necessary, please apply the trivial label.
• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals? Also manually run the affected example notebooks, if necessary.
• Do the proposed changes follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Did the CI pass? If not, are the failures related?
• Is a milestone set? Set this to bugfix milestone if this is a bug fix and needs to be released ASAP; otherwise, set this to the next major release milestone.
• After merge, any internal documentations need updating (e.g., JIRA, Innerspace)?

[mcara]

@pllim just to remind you: astropy/astropy#9073 Also, see the related/linked issue in gwcs. If you can handle astropy.wcs.WCS separately from gwcs.wcs.WCS then you could simply set with_bounding_box=False.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 91.72% // Head: 91.79% // Increases project coverage by +0.07% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (0247f8c) compared to base (d2282d2).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1908      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.72%   91.79%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files         140      140              
  Lines       14824    14951     +127     
==========================================
+ Hits        13597    13724     +127     
  Misses       1227     1227              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...igs/default/plugins/subset_plugin/subset_plugin.py	98.54% <100.00%> (ø)
...z/configs/imviz/plugins/coords_info/coords_info.py	97.87% <100.00%> (+0.31%)	⬆️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/plugins/parsers.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
jdaviz/configs/imviz/plugins/tools.py	94.07% <100.00%> (ø)
jdaviz/configs/imviz/plugins/viewers.py	88.77% <100.00%> (+0.47%)	⬆️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/tests/test_linking.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
jdaviz/configs/imviz/tests/utils.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
jdaviz/configs/imviz/wcs_utils.py	89.65% <100.00%> (+1.30%)	⬆️
jdaviz/core/region_translators.py	98.98% <100.00%> (ø)

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

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[kecnry]

@pllim @rosteen - this is what I came up with for the mouseover display, let me know what you think. The text changes to a gray and shows "(est.)" below the "World" entry to indicate the coordinates are less reliable since they are outside the original bounding box.

Note here the "E"/red image is the top-layer showing flux values, whereas the "A"/gray image is the reference data, so value shows when hovering over red, and sky coordinates are estimated when not over gray.

Screen.Recording.2022-12-13.at.4.11.25.PM.mov

[pllim]

Code-wise LGTM but I have suggestions on clarifying this new feature in the doc. Overall, the solution is very clean. Thanks!

Stale

[pllim]

Need to step away for lunch break. Just posting this now so I don't lose it if I lose power. I am still looking at this. If you wanna apply now, feel free.

[pllim]

I was pretty thorough with this and I am happy on its current state. Though I am also a co-author now, so take my approval however you want. 😬

Thanks for tackling this, Kyle!

[rosteen]

Seems to work in my testing, and the test coverage looks good. I left one question about a class name but it's not a blocker/crucial to merge.