MAINT: Use array-api-strict instead of np.array_api - #16150

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

Thanks ! I think we can just close #16148 in favor of this one

Thanks! Let me run the "exotic archs" also, just in case.

devdeps failure is unrelated (but also kinda bad because we want to test this on devdeps, right?)

How important is it to wait for #16142 to get merged first and then rebase, so you can be sure this works with numpy-dev?

If it helps, I just took out controversial parts from #16142 so it's more lightweight and hopefully backportable now :)

Any new Array API changes are unlikely to be backported anyway, right? Is there a reason why this PR needs to be backported?

@pllim - it does not need to be backported, since it only affects the test added in #15752, which was for 6.1.

OK. I'll let you decide when to merge. Thanks, all!

Thanks, @MridulS!