JP-2066: Add srctype to Combine1D headers

[tapastro]

Closes #6000 🎉

Resolves JP-2066

Description

This PR adds source_type information to combine1d extensions of c1d.fits files, pulled from the x1d inputs to the Combine1D step.

Checklist

• Tests
• Documentation
• Change log
• Milestone
• Label(s)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6079 (ff171c6) into master (20d5bbb) will increase coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head ff171c6 differs from pull request most recent head c1d7905. Consider uploading reports for the commit c1d7905 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #6079      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   76.99%   77.03%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         402      402              
  Lines       34329    34406      +77     
==========================================
+ Hits        26431    26503      +72     
- Misses       7898     7903       +5     

Flag	Coverage Δ		*Carryforward flag
nightly	76.99% <100.00%> (ø)		Carriedforward from 20d5bbb
unit	55.17% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
jwst/combine_1d/combine1d.py	90.59% <100.00%> (+0.81%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 20d5bbb...c1d7905. Read the comment docs.

[tapastro]

I'll be honest that I never really looked into why there are a few different CI test runs - any explanation why the SDP deps version failed here? I poked around a bit, and it seems like things might be out of date in that run, but I don't fully grok what's going on here.

[hbushouse]

LGTM

[hbushouse]

I'll be honest that I never really looked into why there are a few different CI test runs - any explanation why the SDP deps version failed here? I poked around a bit, and it seems like things might be out of date in that run, but I don't fully grok what's going on here.

Unfortunately the previous CI results seem to have disappeared, as a result of the latest commit using [skip ci]

[tapastro]

I'll be honest that I never really looked into why there are a few different CI test runs - any explanation why the SDP deps version failed here? I poked around a bit, and it seems like things might be out of date in that run, but I don't fully grok what's going on here.

Unfortunately the previous CI results seem to have disappeared, as a result of the latest commit using [skip ci]

Under the checks tab, you should be able to select the checks of the previous commit with a dropdown - it failed one of them.

[hbushouse]

Hmmm, same set of tests failed in my PR for the CI run using SDP dependencies. No clue.

[hbushouse]

CI failure for "SDP dependencies" test is due to use of the latest CRDS context that has a bad NIRCam specwcs rmap in it. Redcat folks are fixing. So you can ignore.