Fix some errors with coming pyuvdata changes.

[bhazelton]

External hera_qm tests are failing on an upcoming pyuvdata PR because we are adding a warning related to future_array_shapes a long with an option to read object in using the future shape.

~I initially converted the hera_qm code to use the new option whenever a UVData/UVCal/UVFlag object is read in, but then I realized that would only work after the related pyuvdata PR is merged and would require a very recent version of pyuvdata after that. So I changed it to first ensure that hera_qm was always using future shapes (it was in most places but wasn't in a couple places, I figured those were just accidentally overlooked) and then added warnings filters for all the read calls.~

Per the discussion below, this updates the pyuvdata required version to 2.3 and always uses the future_array_shapes option when reading files into UVData/UVCal/UVFlag objects. As a part of this update, I also removed some code that is no longer needed now that pyuvdata>=2.3 is required.

I also implement some fixtures to reduce repeated code in test_xrfi.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -0.02 :warning:

Comparison is base (d6c757c) 97.06% compared to head (c5529e9) 97.05%.

:exclamation: Current head c5529e9 differs from pull request most recent head 58b5f64. Consider uploading reports for the commit 58b5f64 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #439 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 97.06% 97.05% -0.02% ========================================== Files 10 10 Lines 3510 3460 -50 ========================================== - Hits 3407 3358 -49 + Misses 103 102 -1 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/HERA-Team/hera_qm/pull/439?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=HERA-Team) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [hera\_qm/firstcal\_metrics.py](https://codecov.io/gh/HERA-Team/hera_qm/pull/439?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=HERA-Team#diff-aGVyYV9xbS9maXJzdGNhbF9tZXRyaWNzLnB5) | `93.73% <100.00%> (-0.02%)` | :arrow_down: | | [hera\_qm/omnical\_metrics.py](https://codecov.io/gh/HERA-Team/hera_qm/pull/439?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=HERA-Team#diff-aGVyYV9xbS9vbW5pY2FsX21ldHJpY3MucHk=) | `98.57% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [hera\_qm/utils.py](https://codecov.io/gh/HERA-Team/hera_qm/pull/439?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=HERA-Team#diff-aGVyYV9xbS91dGlscy5weQ==) | `97.22% <100.00%> (+0.14%)` | :arrow_up: | | [hera\_qm/xrfi.py](https://codecov.io/gh/HERA-Team/hera_qm/pull/439?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=HERA-Team#diff-aGVyYV9xbS94cmZpLnB5) | `99.59% <100.00%> (-0.02%)` | :arrow_down: | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=HERA-Team). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=HERA-Team)

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[bhazelton]

Looks like there's another pyuvdata PR with hera_qm errors, so I'll update this to pass on that branch as well. I'll also fix the coverage decrease.

[bhazelton]

Ok, this now fixes the problems in both pyuvdata PRs.

[jsdillon]

I'm OK with requiring the newest version of pyuvdata for the purposes of simplifying this PR (and just not merging it until that version is merged and on pypi).

[bhazelton]

@jsdillon Ok, I think this PR is ready. I'm not sure why the codecov check isn't reporting, but it's showing that the patch is 100% covered when you follow the codecov report link.