Add OCI L2 BGC reader

[djhoese]

We have a user who wants to be able to read OCI L2 Chlorophyll data from "biogeochemical" files (BGC). These are generally standardized to match the existing SEADAS L2 files that we (Polar2Grid) already supported so this new reader uses that reader for all its python functionality.

TODO: If there is a "rows per scan" similar to VIIRS or MODIS then I need to update the python code to use that.

Related ssec/polar2grid#708

CC @kathys

• Closes #xxxx
• Tests added
• Fully documented

[djhoese]

FYI @kathys, I will also need to update Polar2Grid's resampling configuration if we want OCI to be EWA resampled.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.07%. Comparing base (99697f7) to head (43a1531).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2902   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.06%   96.07%           
=======================================
  Files         370      371    +1     
  Lines       54320    54361   +41     
=======================================
+ Hits        52185    52226   +41     
  Misses       2135     2135           

Flag	Coverage Δ
behaviourtests	3.99% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	96.16% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

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

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10850896247

Details

• 43 of 43 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.003%) to 96.169%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
satpy/readers/seadas_l2.py	1	96.97%

Totals
Change from base Build 10814739875:	0.003%
Covered Lines:	52458
Relevant Lines:	54548

---

💛 - Coveralls

[djhoese]

The OCI instrument does not seem to have multiple rows per scans and is therefore not suitable for EWA resampling (not really at least). That also means a "rows_per_scan" metadata value can be set to 0 just fine.

[mraspaud]

The OCI instrument does not seem to have multiple rows per scans and is therefore not suitable for EWA resampling (not really at least). That also means a "rows_per_scan" metadata value can be set to 0 just fine.

Shouldn't it be 1 then?

[djhoese]

Although not well documented (or at all), rows_per_scan being 1 would mean each row is a scan. It being 0 is more of a "treat the entire swath as a scan". The usage is primarily by the EWA resampling, so while I agree 1 is logical, 0 also doesn't cause much harm...at least in my opinion.

[mraspaud]

I'm good with that. Would you mind just dropping a line about this in the documentation if not already there?

[djhoese]

Maybe in the reader metadata documentation?

[mraspaud]

LGTM!