Modify the way settings are passed to the _spectral_density_model function

[pheuer]

Addresses #2620 without capping the version of lmfit

Supercedes #2621

Instead of passing settings to Model and relying on lmfit to pass that to _spectral_density_model, this PR uses a lambda function to freeze in the settings (which are constant) prior to giving the function to lmfit.

def _spectral_density_model_lambda(wavelengths, **params):
        return _spectral_density_model(wavelengths, settings=settings, **params)

    # Create and return the lmfit.Model
    return Model(
        _spectral_density_model_lambda,
        independent_vars=["wavelengths"],
        nan_policy="omit",
    )

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting a pull request (PR) to PlasmaPy! ✨ The future of the project depends on contributors like you, so we deeply appreciate it! 🌱

Our contributor guide has information on:

• Getting ready to contribute and the code contribution workflow
• Using astropy.units and plasmapy.particles
• Coding tips and guidelines
• Writing documentation (in reStructuredText with numpydoc style docstrings).
• Writing tests using pytest
• Adding a changelog entry (needed except for minor changes)

The bottom of this page shows several checks that are run for every PR. Don't worry if something broke! We break stuff all the time. 😺 Click on "Details" to learn why a check didn't pass. Please also feel free to ask for help. We do that all the time as well. 🌸 You can find us in our chat room or weekly community meeting & office hours. Here are some tips:

• Try fixing CI / Python 3.12 test failures first.
• Most pre-commit.ci - pr failures can be automagically fixed by commenting pre-commit.ci autofix below, followed by a git pull to bring the changes back to your computer. Please also see our pre-commit troubleshooting guide.
• If pre-commit.ci - pr says that a function is too long or complex, try breaking up that function into multiple short functions that each do one thing. See also these tips on writing clean scientific software.
• If the CI / Documentation check ends with a cryptic error message, check out our documentation troubleshooting guide.
• For a documentation preview, click on Details next to docs/readthedocs.org:plasmapy.

If this PR is marked as ready for review, someone should stop by to provide a code review and offer suggestions soon. ✅ If you don't get a review within a few days, please feel free to send us a reminder.

Please also use SI units within PlasmaPy, except when there is strong justification otherwise or in some examples.

We thank you once again!

[pheuer]

@namurphy This should be good to go, so merge when ready!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.17%. Comparing base (4c7c0d9) to head (9c296f6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2623   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.17%   95.17%           
=======================================
  Files         104      104           
  Lines        9415     9417    +2     
  Branches     2154     2154           
=======================================
+ Hits         8961     8963    +2     
  Misses        276      276           
  Partials      178      178           

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

[namurphy]

LGTM! 👍🏻 Thank you again for doing this! 🚀

One small optional suggestion, and feel free to merge whenever you're ready!

[namurphy]

Suggested change

	def _spectral_density_model_lambda(wavelengths, **params):
	def _spectral_density_model_wrapper(wavelengths, **params):

❔ 🏷️ Since this isn't defined with a lambda statement, what would you think of renaming it as a wrapper?

Also I'm trying out prefixing code review comments with emojis! I'm still figuring it out, but I'm using ❔ to indicate that it's optional and up to you, and 🏷️ refers to naming.

[pheuer]

Oops, too late, looks like it's already merged but sure I'm fine with either name! I originally had it as a lambda, but switched to this syntax just to keep it under the line limit

[namurphy]

Suggested change

	_spectral_density_model_lambda,
	_spectral_density_model_wrapper,

[pheuer]

@namurphy codecov token issue?

gpg: directory '/Users/runner/.gnupg' created
gpg: /Users/runner/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trustdb created
gpg: key 806BB28AED779869: public key "Codecov Uploader (Codecov Uploader Verification Key) <security@codecov.io>" imported
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg:               imported: 1

gpg: Signature made Thu Mar 28 15:15:56 20[24](https://github.com/PlasmaPy/PlasmaPy/actions/runs/8574775638/job/23502319136?pr=2623#step:7:25) UTC
gpg:                using RSA key 27034E7FDB850E0BBC2C62FF806BB28AED779869
gpg: Good signature from "Codecov Uploader (Codecov Uploader Verification Key) <security@codecov.io>" [unknown]
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 2703 4E7F DB85 0E0B BC2C  62FF 806B B28A ED77 9869

==> Uploader SHASUM verified (cb[25](https://github.com/PlasmaPy/PlasmaPy/actions/runs/8574775638/job/23502319136?pr=2623#step:7:26)0ac4addcd9a21bf1c73d583cdae0e7fbd2c369350829fcc21ffb55ca81e6  codecov)
info - 2024-04-05 19:32:40,217 -- ci service found: github-actions
info - 2024-04-05 19:32:40,586 -- The PR is happening in a forked repo. Using tokenless upload.
info - 2024-04-05 19:32:40,851 -- Process Commit creating complete
error - 2024-04-05 19:32:40,852 -- Commit creating failed: {"detail":"Tokenless has reached GitHub rate limit. Please upload using a token: https://docs.codecov.com/docs/adding-the-codecov-token. Expected available in 191 seconds."}

[namurphy]

@namurphy codecov token issue?

NOOoooOOOoooOOOOooOOOOO!!!!!!! 😿😿😿😿😿😿😿😿 I thought I had fixed that! Let's...ignore codecov checks until we get them working again. Thank you for pointing this out!

[namurphy]

@namurphy codecov token issue?

Also I realized that my response should have technically been "YEEEeeeEEEeeeeSSSSsssSSSS!" 👀 😹