Added P92 model

[siddharthlal25]

Adding P92 model, we can mention this in #10!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (f78e182) to head (30d848a).
⚠️ Report is 31 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master       #29   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           11        11           
  Lines          316       347   +31     
=========================================
+ Hits           316       347   +31     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[siddharthlal25]

@mileslucas @giordano it would be really nice if you can review this!

[mileslucas]

Also, you are missing an entry in the table in docs/src/index.md corresponding to the bibliography entry

[mileslucas]

I have some comments about whether we should restructure the P92 struct, so if we go with that there'll be some changes, but otherwise this looks good to go if you bump the minor version and fix that docstring.

[icweaver]

Will be back for you ='(

[abhro]

Brought this PR up-to-date with the newer interface and implementation of DustExtinction.jl. Once the CI checks pass, this should be good to go! (Probably do a squash merge because wow the commit tree in tig is complicated, and a lot of it is just pulling things up-to-date.)
As for the interface about named tuples, this PR has been up since 2020, we can probably merge this now and then add a separate PR or some such thing to add a new interface for the P92 law at a later time?

[icweaver]

Thanks for picking this up, Abhro! I've just left my minor formatting suggested edits + one science question

[icweaver]

Just following up from #29 (comment), tests look to be passing with the value from the paper. I tagged this in this current round of reviews. Otherwise this lgtm, thanks again for wrapping up this longstanding PR!

[abhro]

Hmm. The commit a93b178 seems to break the doctest, but I'm not sure where the original expected doctest output came from and how to validate it.

[icweaver]

Right, that was just a partial suggestion in my above comment. The new value still needs to be updated in the docstring to match. Will take a look when back bu computer to see if anything deeper is going on

[icweaver]

Interesting. It looks like Karl specifically changed the default from 0.08 to 0.07 back in 2018 as part of karllark/dust_extinction#50

I see he mentioned that an analytic tests was not being satisfied by this new change, and there looks to be another model fitting issue for P92 open since 2022. I haven't done any deeper digging, but I wonder if this might be related.

At any rate, I'm pushing the remaining changes back to the paper value of 0.08 now. I don't think there was anything particularly special about the doctest values that Siddharth used for the start of this PR

[icweaver]

I'll also leave a ping in that repo to follow up

[abhro]

@icweaver Is this good to merge?

[icweaver]

Absolutely. Thanks for these really nice changes!

[icweaver]

I'll also leave a ping in that repo to follow up

Update: The value has been changed back to 0.08 in karllark/dust_extinction#266 as well, so I think we're all good here