Updated and expanded docstrings for the following functions in the BoundingBox module:

[anivenk25]

ModelBoundingBox._validate_shape:

Improved documentation for shape validation in intervals, emphasizing valid and invalid input shapes.
ModelBoundingBox._validate_sequence:

Clarified docstrings regarding order validation, specifying valid options and handling of invalid orders.
ModelBoundingBox._validate_iterable:

Enhanced documentation on iterable validation, highlighting proper handling of ignored intervals.
ModelBoundingBox._valid_index:

Expanded and clarified docstrings for valid index validation in different input scenarios.
ModelBoundingBox.test__setitem__:

Updated docstrings to provide more clarity on setting intervals using keys and indices, including Model Set support.
ModelBoundingBox.test__validate_shape:

Improved docstrings to better explain shape validation in intervals, including units.
ModelBoundingBox.test_prepare_inputs:

Expanded and clarified docstrings for preparing inputs with arrays and scalar inputs inside and outside the bounding box.
ModelBoundingBox.test_create:

Enhanced docstrings to describe the creation test, covering model parameters, bounding boxes, and various input configurations.
ModelBoundingBox.test_reduce:

Improved docstrings for the reduction test, specifying different scenarios for reducing selector arguments based on model parameters.
ModelBoundingBox.test_validate:

Updated docstrings to provide more clarity on selector argument validation with different input scenarios.
These changes aim to provide more comprehensive and understandable documentation for the respective functions within the BoundingBox module.

Description

This pull request is to address ...

Fixes #

• By checking this box, the PR author has requested that maintainers do NOT use the "Squash and Merge" button. Maintainers should respect this when possible; however, the final decision is at the discretion of the maintainer that merges the PR.

[github-actions]

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?
• Is a milestone set? Milestone must be set but we cannot check for it on Actions; do not let the green checkmark fool you.
• 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.

[pllim]

pre-commit.ci autofix

[MridulS]

Just a broad general query: Is there an expectation to write comprehensive docs for all tests in astropy?

[pllim]

Is there an expectation to write comprehensive docs for all tests in astropy?

No. None of these will be rendered.

[anivenk25]

Hey there, I wanted to confirm if there's anything more that needs to be done on my pull request. I'm committed to ensuring the contribution aligns with the project's standards.

[pllim]

Nothing to be done... In fact, I am not 100% this is necessary. I'll leave it to the judgement of modeling maintainers who are tagged to review. Thanks!