BUG: Also check for inf in spaxel tool

[pllim]

Description

This pull request is to fix #3362 .

The fix is so tiny... Do we really need a change log or test here, @rosteen ?

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. Bugfix milestone also needs an accompanying backport label.
• After merge, any internal documentations need updating (e.g., JIRA, Innerspace)? 🐱

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.12%. Comparing base (18a740d) to head (10d7270).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3368      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.17%   88.12%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         127      127              
  Lines       19489    19532      +43     
==========================================
+ Hits        17185    17212      +27     
- Misses       2304     2320      +16     

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

[rosteen]

This might fix the error traceback, but I don't think it results in the behavior that we want. Even if half the spectrum at a given spatial location is NaN, we still want to show the other half. I'm pretty sure this worked before but I don't know what would have changed to break it.

[pllim]

@rosteen good catch, my previous check was flawed. I changed all to any. Does this address your concern? The root of the problem is that the uncert has data that is all inf and it was not caught.