Nonlin cal e2e test

[hsergi]

Describe your changes

I have followed the steps in e2e testing to create an e2e test that starts with raw L1 data and derives a non-linearity calibration that is compared to the result derived with a similar tool and the same data during the TVAC tests.

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant (and this line).

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality): e2e test for a calibration type

Reference any relevant issues (don't forget the #)

Tweaked from TVAC: changed OBSTYPE value from TVAC FITS files from ‘SCI’ to either ‘MNFRAME’ and ‘NONLIN’ as needed. ‘MNFRAME’ value was added to the wished Header Keywords in Confluence.

Checklist before requesting a review

• [x] I have linted my code (7.3/10, see bottom)
• [x] I have verified that all unit tests pass in a clean environment and added new unit tests, as needed
• [x] I have verified that all docstrings are properly formatted and added new documentation, as needed

Linting: ***** Module l1_to_l2a_e2e_nonlin e2e_tests/l1_to_l2a_e2e_nonlin.py:65:21: E1101: Instance of 'HDUList' has no 'header' member (no-member) e2e_tests/l1_to_l2a_e2e_nonlin.py:95:11: E1101: Instance of 'HDUList' has no 'header' member (no-member) e2e_tests/l1_to_l2a_e2e_nonlin.py:101:0: R0914: Too many local variables (20/15) (too-many-locals) e2e_tests/l1_to_l2a_e2e_nonlin.py:174:7: E1101: Instance of 'HDUList' has no 'header' member (no-member) e2e_tests/l1_to_l2a_e2e_nonlin.py:176:23: E1101: Instance of 'HDUList' has no 'data' member; maybe '_data'? (no-member) e2e_tests/l1_to_l2a_e2e_nonlin.py:180:24: E1101: Instance of 'HDUList' has no 'data' member; maybe '_data'? (no-member)

---

Your code has been rated at 7.32/10

[kjl0025]

I looked over the Confluence page. Sorry if I'm late to the game here. I know there are a few differences in the ROI parameters, but they are fully customizable in the II&T code, right? We could do a comparison between the DRP code and the II&T code with the exact same regions chosen (adapting the II&T parameters to match the defaults for the DRP), right?

[semaphoreP]

They are, but the goal here is to have corgidrp reproduce the II&T code end-to-end (including pre-processing steps). So, we probably want to adjust corgidrp, rather than adjusting II&T, to show that corgidrp can produce the same results.