plugin API method to close_in_tray

[kecnry]

Description

This pull request adds a new method to all plugin user APIs to close the item in the tray (useful for demos and notebook workflows, especially when the plugin in question has live-previews enabled). By default, it does not close the tray itself, but accepts an optional argument to close the entire tray.

Change log entry

• Is a change log needed? If yes, is it added to CHANGES.rst? If you want to avoid merge conflicts,
  list the proposed change log here for review and add to CHANGES.rst before merge. If no, maintainer
  should add a no-changelog-entry-needed label.

Checklist for package maintainer(s)

This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainer(s) who will review this pull request of some common things to look for. This list is not exhaustive.

• Are two approvals required? Branch protection rule does not check for the second approval. If a second approval is not necessary, please apply the trivial label.
• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals? Also manually run the affected example notebooks, if necessary.
• Do the proposed changes follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Did the CI pass? If not, are the failures related?
• Is a milestone set? Set this to bugfix milestone if this is a bug fix and needs to be released ASAP; otherwise, set this to the next major release milestone.
• After merge, any internal documentations need updating (e.g., JIRA, Innerspace)?

[pllim]

Actually for both open and close, should they be no-op if the requested item is already opened/closed? Then we don't have to loop over stuff for no reason, or is that too hard to find out before hand or it doesn't matter because the underlying call will already be a no-op?

[kecnry]

I suspect it would cost just as much to add the check before updating the traitlet as it does to set the traitlet to the same value that it currently is, but if anyone wants to test that theory and add the test if its cheaper, feel free!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 5 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (64e0974) 90.79% compared to head (1ae25f9) 90.80%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
jdaviz/core/template_mixin.py	75.00%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2562   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.79%   90.80%           
=======================================
  Files         160      160           
  Lines       19356    19394   +38     
=======================================
+ Hits        17575    17610   +35     
- Misses       1781     1784    +3     

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

[pllim]

Seems to work. Very convenient to have indeed. Thanks!