Fix for Astropy v7.0 incompatibility (#229)

[hpparvi]

This PR fixes Issue #229 by increasing the absolute and relative tolerances of assert_allclose in test_fit_trace_all_nan_col. An absolute tolerance of 0.05 pixels should be sufficient to test that the tracing methods work correctly but leave enough room for any minor variations in the results caused by the changes in the LevMarLSQFitter between Astropy v6 and v7.

Fix #229

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 83.36%. Comparing base (ef38dc0) to head (8b0cd21).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #232   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.36%   83.36%           
=======================================
  Files          13       13           
  Lines        1136     1136           
=======================================
  Hits          947      947           
  Misses        189      189           

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

[pllim]

Please rebase to pick up the other CI fix.

[pllim]

The broader question, though, is whether specreduce should still be using a fitter that is no longer recommended by core astropy library (astropy/astropy#16983).

[hpparvi]

The broader question, though, is whether specreduce should still be using a fitter that is no longer recommended by core astropy library (astropy/astropy#16983).

It probably shouldn't. Fixing this should be relatively trivial, and I can do it either in this PR or a separate one.

[pllim]

Actually I am wondering also if relaxing tolerance is even needed if you switch fitter class.

[hpparvi]

It seems still to be required. I've changed the fitter and run the tests, and the results still differ slightly (at a 0.01-pixel level).

[hpparvi]

The change to LMLSQFitter leads to a deprecation warning: "Using LMLSQFitter for models with bounds is now deprecated since astropy 7.0", so I've also given the TRFLSQFitter and DogBoxLSQFitter a try. The latter works quite well in the tests, but the former results in some larger discrepancies (>0.3 pix). I can either change the test to ignore the deprecation warning, or change the code to use DogBoxLSQFitter with slightly increased error tolerances.

Any preferences? Considering the future, I'd prefer to go with DogBoxLSQFitter.

[pllim]

I'll defer to specreduce maintainers on which fitters to replace the old one with. Thanks!