Hello @astrojimig! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2023-12-07 22:22:16 UTC

Codecov Report

Attention: 3 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (d828534) 66.52% compared to head (f55f47b) 66.52%.
Report is 13 commits behind head on main.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2893   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   66.52%   66.52%           
=======================================
  Files         235      235           
  Lines       18101    18116   +15     
=======================================
+ Hits        12041    12052   +11     
- Misses       6060     6064    +4     

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

@astrojimig - for fixing the linting I would suggest running the command locally rather than rely on CI, and then you could avoid the multiple linting fixing commits and iterations (could you squash them once all are fixed?). Besides that the PR looks to be in a really nice state, so this will be a rather quick review cycle.

@astrojimig - for fixing the linting I would suggest running the command locally rather than rely on CI, and then you could avoid the multiple linting fixing commits and iterations (could you squash them once all are fixed?). Besides that the PR looks to be in a really nice state, so this will be a rather quick review cycle.

Thanks for the tip! And yes, I'll squash all the commits before I mark this as ready for review.

And yes, I'll squash all the commits before I mark this as ready for review.

Thanks!
In general, no need to squash down to 1, but keep it with logical chunks (so just squash out the incremental iterations on one particular thing).

Thanks @astrojimig for your first astroquery PR. Looking forward for many more to come!