Rotate image in Imviz

[pllim]

Description

This pull request is to allow image rotation in Imviz.

Still need a lot of some work but here is what I get with the stuff in the concept notebook added in this PR:

Bonus: Compass zoom box now can rotate too.

TODO

• How to make Compass play nice with rotation? We will just disable the zoom box in Compass when this plugin is active or something.
• How to hide the reference WCS but keep it as reference?
• How will this work when multiple images are loaded?
• How will this work with GWCS?
• How to undo/redo rotation?
• Performance considerations.
• Manually test a variety of other workflows: Multiple viewers, etc.
• When POC works, implement in plugin.
• Clean up concept notebook.
• Bug: Coordinates info bar can get out of sync after rotating with 3 images in the concept notebook. Maybe my Lab is messed up? Try in notebook and see.
  • Fix Imviz coordinates display shows wrong X and Y for dithered image on load #1299
• Take out the stuff moved to BUG: Imviz bug fixes ported from PR 1340 #1392
• Write unit tests.

ref #1466

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 change log needed? If yes, is it added to CHANGES.rst?
• Is a milestone set?
• After merge, any internal documentations need updating (e.g., JIRA, Innerspace)? 🐱

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1340 (1466bf0) into main (8c3d3e7) will decrease coverage by 0.40%.
The diff coverage is 60.81%.

❗ Current head 1466bf0 differs from pull request most recent head 6aea214. Consider uploading reports for the commit 6aea214 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1340      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.91%   84.50%   -0.41%     
==========================================
  Files          91       93       +2     
  Lines        8288     8398     +110     
==========================================
+ Hits         7038     7097      +59     
- Misses       1250     1301      +51     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...configs/imviz/plugins/rotate_image/rotate_image.py	43.54% <43.54%> (ø)
jdaviz/core/template_mixin.py	91.21% <50.00%> (-0.12%)	⬇️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/wcs_utils.py	66.07% <53.84%> (-0.60%)	⬇️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/plugins/viewers.py	77.48% <69.56%> (-2.99%)	⬇️
jdaviz/app.py	92.46% <75.00%> (-0.29%)	⬇️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/helper.py	98.71% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/plugins/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...s/imviz/plugins/line_profile_xy/line_profile_xy.py	99.04% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
...viz/configs/imviz/plugins/rotate_image/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 8c3d3e7...6aea214. Read the comment docs.

[astrofrog]

The approach of using a dummy dataset with a rotated WCS is 'what I would do too given the current glue infrastructure. I think what we ideally want to be able to do is to have the ability to have such datasets have a special status in glue which would make them 'hidden' from most lists except for the reference data in the image viewer, but that's not possible for now. But it is something I could prioritize if desired.

[pllim]

I used to have this in the app somewhere but maybe it was removed in one of the refactoring. @kecnry , I know your pet peeve is the reference vs ID stuff, so I want to make sure you are okay with this change.

[pllim]

Looks like this PR might be rejected, so I am going to take out the bug fixes and open new PR for that (see #1392).

[pllim]

From tag up this morning, POs @orifox and @larrybradley have agreed to pursue #1384 instead. Therefore, I moved the bug fixes to #1392 and closing this PR without merge.