Fix clean_flicker_noise test for system differences

[melanieclarke]

I noticed a unit test failure for the new clean_flicker_noise step in the numpy 2 regression test run (build 1737).

This was a coverage test, intended to evoke a linear algebra error, but it looks like the error is not evoked in the same way across all systems and dependency versions. I modified the test to monkeypatch in an error instead, which should be more robust.

Tasks

• request a review from someone specific, to avoid making the maintainers review every PR
• add a build milestone, i.e. Build 11.3 (use the latest build if not sure)
• Does this PR change user-facing code / API?
  • add an entry to CHANGES.rst within the relevant release section (otherwise add the no-changelog-entry-needed label to this PR)
  • update or add relevant tests
  • update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page
  • start a regression test and include a link to the running job (click here for instructions)
    • Do truth files need to be updated ("okified")?
      • after the reviewer has approved these changes, run okify_regtests to update the truth files
• if a JIRA ticket exists, make sure it is resolved properly

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 61.86%. Comparing base (54d84c6) to head (eab0532).
Report is 464 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #8817   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   61.86%   61.86%           
=======================================
  Files         377      377           
  Lines       38911    38911           
=======================================
  Hits        24071    24071           
  Misses      14840    14840           

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

[stscirij]

This looks good, assuming that the purpose of the test is to test that the routine returns None when a LinearAlgebra exception is thrown, not that the routine throws a LinearAlgebra exception in the first place...

[melanieclarke]

This looks good, assuming that the purpose of the test is to test that the routine returns None when a LinearAlgebra exception is thrown, not that the routine throws a LinearAlgebra exception in the first place...

Yes, exactly that! I happened to come across a real LinearAlgebra exception on my own machine in testing, which is why I originally wrote it that way, but the test is just to make sure the routine handles exceptions. Thanks for reviewing.