Respect nonzero NoData values

[jterry64]

Pull request checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

• [X] Make sure you are requesting to pull a topic/feature/bugfix branch (right side). Don't request your master!
• [X] Make sure you are making a pull request against the develop branch (left side). Also you should start your branch off our develop.
• [X] Check the commit's or even all commits' message styles matches our requested structure.
• [X] Check your code additions will fail neither code linting checks nor unit test.

Pull request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• [X] Bugfix
• [X] Feature
• [ ] Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• [ ] Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• [ ] Build related changes
• [ ] Documentation content changes
• [ ] Other (please describe):

What is the current behavior?

The code assumes the NoData values for all layers is 0, but it's possible that the NoData value is any number (or NaN for float).

Issue Number: GTC-2287

What is the new behavior?

• The data environment now accepts a NoData field per layer, with a default of 0.
• Queries will now mask out where the layers have their respective NoData values, instead of always masking where the value is 0

Does this introduce a breaking change?

• [ ] Yes
• [X] No

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 94.63% // Head: 94.82% // Increases project coverage by +0.18% :tada:

Coverage data is based on head (78e5dae) compared to base (c70b2a6). Patch coverage: 91.42% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

:mega: This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## develop #63 +/- ## =========================================== + Coverage 94.63% 94.82% +0.18% =========================================== Files 19 19 Lines 1175 1218 +43 =========================================== + Hits 1112 1155 +43 Misses 63 63 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | unittests | `94.82% <91.42%> (+0.18%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [lambdas/raster\_analysis/src/lambda\_function.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-bGFtYmRhcy9yYXN0ZXJfYW5hbHlzaXMvc3JjL2xhbWJkYV9mdW5jdGlvbi5weQ==) | `76.92% <0.00%> (ø)` | | | [raster\_analysis/tiling.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-cmFzdGVyX2FuYWx5c2lzL3RpbGluZy5weQ==) | `99.07% <ø> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: | | [tests/fixtures/fixtures.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-dGVzdHMvZml4dHVyZXMvZml4dHVyZXMucHk=) | `100.00% <ø> (ø)` | | | [raster\_analysis/query\_executor.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-cmFzdGVyX2FuYWx5c2lzL3F1ZXJ5X2V4ZWN1dG9yLnB5) | `91.83% <85.71%> (-0.64%)` | :arrow_down: | | [raster\_analysis/data\_environment.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-cmFzdGVyX2FuYWx5c2lzL2RhdGFfZW52aXJvbm1lbnQucHk=) | `97.74% <92.85%> (+1.05%)` | :arrow_up: | | [tests/e2e/test\_raster\_analysis.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-dGVzdHMvZTJlL3Rlc3RfcmFzdGVyX2FuYWx5c2lzLnB5) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [raster\_analysis/query.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-cmFzdGVyX2FuYWx5c2lzL3F1ZXJ5LnB5) | `96.53% <0.00%> (+0.03%)` | :arrow_up: | | [raster\_analysis/results\_store.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-cmFzdGVyX2FuYWx5c2lzL3Jlc3VsdHNfc3RvcmUucHk=) | `94.28% <0.00%> (+0.11%)` | :arrow_up: | | [raster\_analysis/window.py](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri#diff-cmFzdGVyX2FuYWx5c2lzL3dpbmRvdy5weQ==) | `94.20% <0.00%> (+0.17%)` | :arrow_up: | | ... and [3 more](https://codecov.io/gh/wri/gfw-raster-analysis-lambda/pull/63?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=wri) | | 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=wri). 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=wri)

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