Added compatability to current version of carsus atomic data

[Rodot-]

Changed the way that the atomic data objects are instantiated in TARDIS to handle atomic data produced by carsus

Motivation and context
Currently, carsus and tardis are incompatible when using atomic data containing collisional data.

How has this been tested?
Local tests with current carsus branch

• Testing pipeline
• Other

Examples

Type of change

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Breaking change
• None of the above

Checklist

• I have updated the documentation according to my changes
• I have built the documentation by applying the build_docs label to this pull request (if you don't have enough privileges a reviewer will do it for you)
• I have requested two reviewers for this pull request

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2019 (f605df3) into master (c188b8a) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 24.13%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2019      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   60.04%   60.01%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          70       70              
  Lines        8121     8133      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits         4876     4881       +5     
- Misses       3245     3252       +7     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tardis/plasma/properties/atomic.py	55.73% <0.00%> (-0.45%)	⬇️
tardis/plasma/properties/continuum_processes.py	35.75% <0.00%> (ø)
tardis/io/atom_data/base.py	81.81% <28.00%> (-7.90%)	⬇️
tardis/io/atom_data/atom_web_download.py	40.00% <0.00%> (-2.11%)	⬇️
tardis/io/util.py	78.26% <0.00%> (+6.26%)	⬆️

📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

[Rodot-]

Should be noted, this branch now seems to work but it must be run single-threaded.

[Rodot-]

We should start thinking about writing tests, but that could go into a later PR, what does everyone think?

[epassaro]

We should start thinking about writing tests, but that could go into a later PR, what does everyone think?

We are currently adding more metadata and versioning Carsus format, so the key checkingássigning must be handled differently. I hope we have this ready for Thursday.

EDIT: I mean, after these new changes the new Carsus files are going to be signed with "format_version: v1.0" and old atomic files must be identified as "legacy" or something like that in TARDIS.

[epassaro]

Is this ready? @sonachitchyan @Rodot-

[tardis-bot]

*beep* *bop*

Hi, human.

The docs workflow has succeeded ✔️

Click here to see your results.

[epassaro]

How has this been tested? It hasn't really

We can say this has been tested against old Carsus atomic files.

New atomic files were tested locally, right?

[Rodot-]

Yep, we tested the new ones locally and the old ones are tested by the pipeline

[Rodot-]

@epassaro @andrewfullard @chvogl I think this is ready to merge if you add your approvals, unless anyone has any final comments.