Remove assignment validation

[braingram]

This PR removes validation on attribute assignment for roman datamodels. This change was discussed during a recent roman calibration tag up and the consensus was that removing this feature will make handling TVAC data easier (and potentially older versions of files once RAD schemas/roman_datamodels are versioned).

With this PR we could consider removing "nuke_validation". The reasoning is that disabling validate_on_read now allows reading old/invalid files. Let's say I have a file "foo.asdf" with FOO_IMAGE as exposure_type-1.0.0. On roman_datamodels main if I try to open this file I get an error:

>> import asdf
>> from roman_datamodels import datamodels as dm
>> m = dm.open("foo.asdf")
ValidationError: 'FOO_IMAGE' is not one of ['WFI_IMAGE', 'WFI_GRISM', 'WFI_PRISM', 'WFI_DARK', 'WFI_FLAT', 'WFI_WFSC']

On main disabling validate_on_read doesn't prevent this error since roman_datamodels will still validate each assignment. However, with this PR disabling validate_on_read allows the file to be opened:

>> cfg = asdf.config.get_config()
>> cfg.validate_on_read = False
>> m = dm.open("foo.asdf")
<roman_datamodels.datamodels._datamodels.ImageModel at 0x161f96890>

Since this PR disables assignment validation there's no need to "nuke validation" for assignments. However there would still be a use for this feature if we want to be able to save invalid files.

If a user wants to write an invalid file I think it makes more sense for that file to not use RAD tags/schemas.

Regression tests https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/11731951627
show one doctest failure due to the romancal docs testing assignment validation. This failure is addressed in spacetelescope/romancal#1504

Tasks

• Update or add relevant roman_datamodels tests.
• Update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page.
• Does this PR change any API used downstream? (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).
  • Start a romancal regression test (https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/workflows/romancal.yml) with this branch installed ("git+https://github.com/<fork>/rad@<branch>").

News fragment change types:

• changes/<PR#>.feature.rst: new feature
• changes/<PR#>.bugfix.rst: fixes an issue
• changes/<PR#>.doc.rst: documentation change
• changes/<PR#>.removal.rst: deprecation or removal of public API
• changes/<PR#>.misc.rst: infrastructure or miscellaneous change

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.41%. Comparing base (087a60d) to head (a61272d).
Report is 76 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #417      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.56%   97.41%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          30       36       +6     
  Lines        2788     3294     +506     
==========================================
+ Hits         2720     3209     +489     
- Misses         68       85      +17     

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

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[schlafly]

I'm happy when you and William are. There's some magic in the current code where knowledge about how using dot notation triggers validation and dictionary notation does not, and a nice feature of this is that that magic will go away, I think?

[mairanteodoro]

Looks good! Thanks, @braingram!
Just one question: will the validation still happen on saving the file?

[braingram]

Looks good! Thanks, @braingram! Just one question: will the validation still happen on saving the file?

Thanks! Yeah, asdf will always validate before saving (although roman_datamodels prevents this when "nuke validation is enabled allowing saving invalid files).

[PaulHuwe]

LGTM. Can you wait to merge until @WilliamJamieson approves?

[WilliamJamieson]

These changes are fine with me. More cleanup can probably be done but that is outside the scope of this PR.