Aperture photometry table (with popout support)

[kecnry]

Description

This pull request implements a user-clearable table which displays the history of results from the aperture photometry plugin. The previous imviz.get_aperture_photometry_results still works, but now serves as a shortcut to plugin.export_table() (once the user API is enabled for the aperture photometry plugin).

Future planned work includes the ability to display the table in a panel in the golden-layout section of the main app (below all other viewers), but for now support for popping out into a new window exists.

Change log entry

• Is a change log needed? If yes, is it added to CHANGES.rst? If you want to avoid merge conflicts,
  list the proposed change log here for review and add to CHANGES.rst before merge. If no, maintainer
  should add a no-changelog-entry-needed label.

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 milestone set? Set this to bugfix milestone if this is a bug fix and needs to be released ASAP; otherwise, set this to the next major release milestone.
• After merge, any internal documentations need updating (e.g., JIRA, Innerspace)?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 92.04% // Head: 92.04% // Decreases project coverage by -0.01% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (46ce7a3) compared to base (dad439d).
Patch coverage: 92.85% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1985      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.04%   92.04%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         140      140              
  Lines       15148    15206      +58     
==========================================
+ Hits        13943    13996      +53     
- Misses       1205     1210       +5     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
jdaviz/core/template_mixin.py	92.85% <91.07%> (-0.12%)	⬇️
jdaviz/app.py	94.42% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
jdaviz/configs/imviz/helper.py	96.20% <100.00%> (ø)
...imviz/plugins/aper_phot_simple/aper_phot_simple.py	92.22% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

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

[pllim]

API doc could use some text:

• https://jdaviz--1985.org.readthedocs.build/en/1985/api/jdaviz.core.template_mixin.TableMixin.html#jdaviz.core.template_mixin.TableMixin
• https://jdaviz--1985.org.readthedocs.build/en/1985/api/jdaviz.core.template_mixin.Table.html#jdaviz.core.template_mixin.Table

When I "clear all" and select the columns out of order (e.g., "sum" first and then "xcenter"), the display is actually the order that I click, not the actual order in the table. Is that intentional?

Is it intentional that the timestamp is never an option for the UI?

Other than the minor comments, this LGTM. The fact that none of the tests changed give me some relieve that this is mainly UI cosmetics and does not affect backend code. My approval is probably not as important as those from PO or Jenn.

[kecnry]

When I "clear all" and select the columns out of order (e.g., "sum" first and then "xcenter"), the display is actually the order that I click, not the actual order in the table. Is that intentional?

Yes

Is it intentional that the timestamp is never an option for the UI?

Somewhat - we can discuss whether to display timestamp and/or a counter for sorting. We'll probably also want to discuss what precision to display in the table UI. Whether those happen within this review or as follow up efforts is up to the reviewers, I suppose.

[pllim]

Nice improvement. Thanks!

[javerbukh]

Looks good, nice work!