LMC Bar method added

[stefanocovino]

Dear friends,

I've added, some time ago, the LMC average model in Gordon et al. (2003) to the list of the available recipes. Might it be of interest for the main branch?

Stefano

[cgarling]

Thanks for the PR! Just a few comments regarding tests and domain errors.

[stefanocovino]

I see there were several updates in the main branch I did not include. My fault, of course. As a matter of fact, this fork was ready since several months, but I never manage to pull a request for a long story (I was in contact with one of the developers of this package that, I guess, eventually left the role but I was waiting for comments by him). Anyway, I did not change any part of the code apart from adding the g03lmc recipe.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.62%. Comparing base (cc36486) to head (8c3ac7d).
Report is 14 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #50      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   99.61%   99.62%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          10       10              
  Lines         261      270       +9     
==========================================
+ Hits          260      269       +9     
  Misses          1        1              

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

[cgarling]

Fixes #44 and lgtm

[icweaver]

Thank you for this all! Should some docs and a plot also be added, similar to past models?

[stefanocovino]

Hi,

I have thought about this. However, the LMC extinction curve I've added is from a paper (Gordon et al. 2003) already considered in the package. And there are no plots based on these recipes. So, I did not prepare any plot. Nevertheless, if needed, it would be easy to prepare some.

[cgarling]

I pushed a commit to add the (short) docstring to the @docs block but idk about the plot -- it looks like they are checked into the repo but I usually prefer to generate them on-the-fly during the CI run so that the git history tracks the code that generated the plots rather than the image files themselves. I also find plots overlaying different laws at fixed R_V more useful than having one plot per law showing multiple R_V values, but that's a personal preference.

I would be happy to merge as-is and worry about the plot at a later time.

[stefanocovino]

I agree.

[icweaver]

Alrighty, let's get it y'all. Thanks @stefanocovino for this really nice PR!

Oh yea, did we want to squash any commits? Totally fine either way, just getting back up to speed on what maintenance things are preferred here

[cgarling]

Sorry I didn't see your edit -- I don't usually worry about squashing unless I know there's a lot of junk commits that I don't think have value (i.e. I did something wrong and just pushed a new commit rather than reverting).