refactor CI and use tox.ini with Tox 4 and PEP517 build

[zacharyburnett]

In an attempt to standardize CI across repos and make it less confusing, this PR reintroduces tox and uses the toxenv naming scheme from the Romancal repo.

Additionally, toxenvs in the check matrix run concurrently with other tests.

Checklist

• added entry in CHANGES.rst (either in Bug Fixes or Changes to API)
• updated relevant tests
• updated relevant documentation
• updated relevant milestone(s)
• added relevant label(s)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 87.68% // Head: 97.96% // Increases project coverage by +10.27% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (ef5af0c) compared to base (38944d7).
Patch coverage: 95.83% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #108       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   87.68%   97.96%   +10.27%     
===========================================
  Files          10       14        +4     
  Lines        1714     1275      -439     
===========================================
- Hits         1503     1249      -254     
+ Misses        211       26      -185     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	97.96% <95.83%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tests/test_models.py	99.13% <95.83%> (ø)
src/stdatamodels/fits_support.py
src/stdatamodels/model_base.py
src/stdatamodels/schema.py
src/stdatamodels/filetype.py
src/stdatamodels/validate.py
src/stdatamodels/properties.py
src/stdatamodels/util.py
src/stdatamodels/s3_utils.py
src/stdatamodels/__init__.py
... and 15 more

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.

[braingram]

Any idea why coverage tests were running with asdf dev?

[braingram]

Nice addition to include tests in the flake8 check.

[braingram]

Thanks for updating this. Looks good to me.

[braingram]

@zacharyburnett and/or @nden Is there someone with the required permissions that can update the branch protection rules to reflect the CI changes in this PR?
Specifically, I think the following checks were replaced (format "old -> new")

• Bandit security audit -> CI / check-security
• Code style checks -> CI / check-style
• Coverage -> CI / test-xdist-cov
• test (3.9, macos-latest) -> CI / test-xdist (Python 3.9, macos-latest)
• test (3.9, ubuntu-latest) -> CI / test-xdist (Python 3.9, ubuntu-latest)

An example PR with old style expectations and new CI is here: #110

[zacharyburnett]

@zacharyburnett and/or @nden Is there someone with the required permissions that can update the branch protection rules to reflect the CI changes in this PR? Specifically, I think the following checks were replaced (format "old -> new")

• Bandit security audit -> CI / check-security
• Code style checks -> CI / check-style
• Coverage -> CI / test-xdist-cov
• test (3.9, macos-latest) -> CI / test-xdist (Python 3.9, macos-latest)
• test (3.9, ubuntu-latest) -> CI / test-xdist (Python 3.9, ubuntu-latest)

An example PR with old style expectations and new CI is here: #110

sure thing, changed in the settings