Add method for creating lightcurve for object

[mwcraig]

This fixes #462 by adding a lightcurve_for method to PhotometryData.

A couple items:

1. A better API might be to accept a single required argument, maybe called "target", that can be either a star_id, a coordinate or a name. If that is better, then we might need to drop the name option, because star_id is a string so I'm not sure how to distinguish between star_id and name.
2. The term "flux" is a little unfortunate, but we can't change that...it is a lightkiurve thing.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 80.53%. Comparing base (31f01ab) to head (1c89681).
Report is 79 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #464      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.30%   80.53%   +0.23%     
==========================================
  Files          30       31       +1     
  Lines        3945     3987      +42     
==========================================
+ Hits         3168     3211      +43     
+ Misses        777      776       -1     

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

[JuanCab]

Seems reasonable overall. The tests looked reasonable as well (I mean, you are just checking the right number of rows are in the final light curve).

[JuanCab]

I don't know how happy I am with ignoring this warning, given the warning includes "scheduled for removal". :/

[mwcraig]

Totally agree, but also can't control 😬

[mwcraig]

A better API might be to accept a single required argument, maybe called "target", that can be either a star_id, a coordinate or a name.

@JuanCab what do you think about this 👆

[JuanCab]

A better API might be to accept a single required argument, maybe called "target", that can be either a star_id, a coordinate or a name.

@JuanCab what do you think about this 👆

Yeah, I don't know if the technical term for this is API (we aren't connecting different programs together via some server/client interface), BUT I do think it make sense to have a single required argument, especially if the only difference is the data type.

[mwcraig]

Merging, since the new signature matches the proposal above (darn you for learning what things like API actually mean 😉 ) and test coverage is 100% and tests are passing.