drop support for python 3.10

[braingram]

This PR drops support for python 3.10 as per SPEC0.

Regtests run in python 3.12:
https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/13021815724/job/36323966628#step:30:28
so they won't be run for this PR.

The oldest deps job (required as per the branch protections) with this PR runs with python 3.11. This branch protection rule will need to be updated when this PR is merged.

Also fixes #9110 since a new version of the build workflow was released with the required changes.

Tasks

• request a review from someone specific, to avoid making the maintainers review every PR
• add a build milestone, i.e. Build 11.3 (use the latest build if not sure)
• Does this PR change user-facing code / API? (if not, label with no-changelog-entry-needed)
  • write news fragment(s) in changes/: echo "changed something" > changes/<PR#>.<changetype>.rst (see below for change types)
  • update or add relevant tests
  • update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page
  • start a regression test and include a link to the running job (click here for instructions)
    • Do truth files need to be updated ("okified")?
      • after the reviewer has approved these changes, run okify_regtests to update the truth files
• if a JIRA ticket exists, make sure it is resolved properly

news fragment change types...

• changes/<PR#>.general.rst: infrastructure or miscellaneous change
• changes/<PR#>.docs.rst
• changes/<PR#>.stpipe.rst
• changes/<PR#>.datamodels.rst
• changes/<PR#>.scripts.rst
• changes/<PR#>.set_telescope_pointing.rst
• changes/<PR#>.pipeline.rst

stage 1

• changes/<PR#>.group_scale.rst
• changes/<PR#>.dq_init.rst
• changes/<PR#>.emicorr.rst
• changes/<PR#>.saturation.rst
• changes/<PR#>.ipc.rst
• changes/<PR#>.firstframe.rst
• changes/<PR#>.lastframe.rst
• changes/<PR#>.reset.rst
• changes/<PR#>.superbias.rst
• changes/<PR#>.refpix.rst
• changes/<PR#>.linearity.rst
• changes/<PR#>.rscd.rst
• changes/<PR#>.persistence.rst
• changes/<PR#>.dark_current.rst
• changes/<PR#>.charge_migration.rst
• changes/<PR#>.jump.rst
• changes/<PR#>.clean_flicker_noise.rst
• changes/<PR#>.ramp_fitting.rst
• changes/<PR#>.gain_scale.rst

stage 2

• changes/<PR#>.assign_wcs.rst
• changes/<PR#>.badpix_selfcal.rst
• changes/<PR#>.msaflagopen.rst
• changes/<PR#>.nsclean.rst
• changes/<PR#>.imprint.rst
• changes/<PR#>.background.rst
• changes/<PR#>.extract_2d.rst
• changes/<PR#>.master_background.rst
• changes/<PR#>.wavecorr.rst
• changes/<PR#>.srctype.rst
• changes/<PR#>.straylight.rst
• changes/<PR#>.wfss_contam.rst
• changes/<PR#>.flatfield.rst
• changes/<PR#>.fringe.rst
• changes/<PR#>.pathloss.rst
• changes/<PR#>.barshadow.rst
• changes/<PR#>.photom.rst
• changes/<PR#>.pixel_replace.rst
• changes/<PR#>.resample_spec.rst
• changes/<PR#>.residual_fringe.rst
• changes/<PR#>.cube_build.rst
• changes/<PR#>.extract_1d.rst
• changes/<PR#>.resample.rst

stage 3

• changes/<PR#>.assign_mtwcs.rst
• changes/<PR#>.mrs_imatch.rst
• changes/<PR#>.tweakreg.rst
• changes/<PR#>.skymatch.rst
• changes/<PR#>.exp_to_source.rst
• changes/<PR#>.outlier_detection.rst
• changes/<PR#>.tso_photometry.rst
• changes/<PR#>.stack_refs.rst
• changes/<PR#>.align_refs.rst
• changes/<PR#>.klip.rst
• changes/<PR#>.spectral_leak.rst
• changes/<PR#>.source_catalog.rst
• changes/<PR#>.combine_1d.rst
• changes/<PR#>.ami.rst

other

• changes/<PR#>.wfs_combine.rst
• changes/<PR#>.white_light.rst
• changes/<PR#>.cube_skymatch.rst
• changes/<PR#>.engdb_tools.rst
• changes/<PR#>.guider_cds.rst

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.48%. Comparing base (d157184) to head (046b34d).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9116      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   73.73%   78.48%   +4.74%     
==========================================
  Files         373      507     +134     
  Lines       37272    46335    +9063     
==========================================
+ Hits        27482    36364    +8882     
- Misses       9790     9971     +181     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
nightly	77.77% <ø> (?)		Carriedforward from 934f434

*This pull request uses carry forward flags. Click here to find out more.

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

[tapastro]

The installation docs mention python 3.10. Removing that should be the last mention that I'm aware of:

jwst/docs/getting_started/install.rst

Line 41 in 86bdb84

JWST requires a C compiler for dependencies and is currently limited to Python 3.10, 3.11, or 3.12.

[braingram]

The installation docs mention python 3.10. Removing that should be the last mention that I'm aware of:

jwst/docs/getting_started/install.rst

Line 41 in 86bdb84

JWST requires a C compiler for dependencies and is currently limited to Python 3.10, 3.11, or 3.12.

Thanks! I pushed bc3ab42 which removes that mention.

[tapastro]

Thanks for the cleanup!

[emolter]

There's one spot in the .ruff.toml and one for the mypy config in pyproject.toml that also mention Python 3.10. Was your plan to include those changes here or in a separate follow-up?

[tapastro]

Good call, I'd already forgotten about those. We should probably include that here.

[tapastro]

So the ruff change to py311 doesn't cause style failures? Not what I was expecting, but I'm not going to complain.

[emolter]

Can you say more about the oldestdeps job? I see that there are currently two jobs in the list of CI checks that are labeled "oldestdeps" - one is the py310 job, and the other one is a py311 job that is presumably coming from this PR. The py310 job is hanging forever. Why is the CI picking this job up at all, now that you have removed it from the configuration?

[emolter]

So the ruff change to py311 doesn't cause style failures? Not what I was expecting, but I'm not going to complain.

Remember that most modules are still in the ignores list

[tapastro]

Remember that most modules are still in the ignores list

My reasoning: if there isn't anything worth complaining about in ami, it seems likely that the differences between ruff py310 and py311 must not be large.

[braingram]

So the ruff change to py311 doesn't cause style failures? Not what I was expecting, but I'm not going to complain.

I was a little surprised too. I confirmed this locally.

Can you say more about the oldestdeps job? I see that there are currently two jobs in the list of CI checks that are labeled "oldestdeps" - one is the py310 job, and the other one is a py311 job that is presumably coming from this PR. The py310 job is hanging forever. Why is the CI picking this job up at all, now that you have removed it from the configuration?

test / py310-oldestdeps-xdist-cov is Expected — Waiting for status to be reported due to it being listed as required under the branch protection rules (so github is expecting it to run). However with this PR that job will never start (it was removed) and instead test / test / py311-oldestdeps-xdist-cov is run (which completed). When the branch protections are updated test / test / py311-oldestdeps-xdist-cov can be marked as required.

EDIT: The names are a little odd and sometimes the name that appears in the branch protection selection (which is kind of like a drop down) is a bit different than what's run. I've never understood that nuance but once this PR is merged the new py311-oldestdeps-xdist-cov (whatever it's exact name ends up being) will be selectable.

[emolter]

LGTM, thanks for explaining how the branch protection rules interact with the PR