JP-3628: Revise coron3 alignment step

[penaguerrero]

Resolves JP-3628

Closes #

This PR addresses aligning only the first integration of the science exposure.

Checklist for PR authors (skip items if you don't have permissions or they are not applicable)

• added entry in CHANGES.rst within the relevant release section
• updated or added relevant tests
• updated relevant documentation
• added relevant milestone
• added relevant label(s)
• ran regression tests, post a link to the Jenkins job below.
  How to run regression tests on a PR
• All comments are resolved
• Make sure the JIRA ticket is resolved properly

[penaguerrero]

reg tests: https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/job/RT/job/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/1602/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 81.81818% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.47%. Comparing base (cf91724) to head (0dae781).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
jwst/coron/imageregistration.py	81.81%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #8643   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.47%   60.47%           
=======================================
  Files         369      369           
  Lines       38408    38413    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits        23226    23230    +4     
- Misses      15182    15183    +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[melanieclarke]

@penaguerrero - I'm not sure your solution here does what is required. It looks like you are computing the shifts from the first integration, as requested, but then you are shifting only the first integration. I think the shifts computed from the first integration need to be applied to all the subsequent ones.

[penaguerrero]

@melanieclarke thanks! brain freeze :)

[melanieclarke]

I think the behavior looks right now -- thanks for the update!

I think we could do a little better at the code refactoring, though, to avoid some unnecessary computations, and the docs need tweaking for clarity.

[emolter]

Looks good Maria! Just a few small comments. It might be good to do one more regtest just in case, after changes

[melanieclarke]

Just a couple more suggestions for documentation clarity, but I think this looks good.

Can you please re-run the regression tests one more time?

[penaguerrero]

reg test: https://plwishmaster.stsci.edu:8081/job/RT/job/JWST-Developers-Pull-Requests/1625/

[melanieclarke]

Regression test results look appropriate -- NIRSpec failures are all unrelated.

I think everything looks good now. Thanks for all the fixes!