set individual module CODEOWNERS from wiki page of maintainers

[zacharyburnett]

Closes #9188

these changes will make it so that PRs that change individual step modules will automatically request a review from the specified maintainers by default, unless a reviewer has already been requested

copied maintainer usernames from https://github.com/spacetelescope/jwst/wiki/Maintainers#step-and-subpackage-maintainers

we'll probably need to update this list before merging

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

[tapastro]

What spurred this effort?

Our wiki maintainers list is quite out of date - it doesn't include any entries for our two most recent hires. The PR template asking for specific reviewers is left to the PR author for selection- this may be overly structured/formulaic to use for that, though I suppose it could be a start.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 73.68%. Comparing base (949bd75) to head (c034d3f).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #9189   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   73.68%   73.68%           
=======================================
  Files         372      372           
  Lines       37096    37096           
=======================================
  Hits        27333    27333           
  Misses       9763     9763           

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

[zacharyburnett]

What spurred this effort?

Our wiki maintainers list is quite out of date - it doesn't include any entries for our two most recent hires. The PR template asking for specific reviewers is left to the PR author for selection- this may be overly structured/formulaic to use for that, though I suppose it could be a start.

Well I'm personally unsure who should be tagged for review for specific steps, so I imagine that external collaborator PRs would also not know. This change is trivial but ensures that the list exists in the repository (with a history) and that PRs have less of a chance of going stale / pass unnoticed or unreviewed, since there will be an automatic fallback person tagged for review, without pinging the entire developer team every time (those notifications add up quick!)

It's not entirely necessary though, I thought it would be nice to automate a little bit more of the PR flow