Use TRFLSQFitter instead of LevMarLSQFitter

[pllim]

Description

This pull request is to fix #3189

Change log entry

• Is a change log needed? If yes, is it added to CHANGES.rst? If you want to avoid merge conflicts,
  list the proposed change log here for review and add to CHANGES.rst before merge. If no, maintainer
  should add a no-changelog-entry-needed label.

Checklist for package maintainer(s)

This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainer(s) who will review this pull request of some common things to look for. This list is not exhaustive.

• Are two approvals required? Branch protection rule does not check for the second approval. If a second approval is not necessary, please apply the trivial label.
• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals? Also manually run the affected example notebooks, if necessary.
• Do the proposed changes follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the STScI Style Guides?
• Did the CI pass? If not, are the failures related?
• Is a milestone set? Set this to bugfix milestone if this is a bug fix and needs to be released ASAP; otherwise, set this to the next major release milestone. Bugfix milestone also needs an accompanying backport label.
• After merge, any internal documentations need updating (e.g., JIRA, Innerspace)? 🐱

[pllim]

@larrybradley , is this replacement reasonable or another one is better? Also see astropy/photutils#1895

[larrybradley]

That should work fine. I don't think you are using parameter bounds, so LMLSQFitter is also an option.

[pllim]

Thanks! Well, not yet. No idea if that is going to be future request or not. 😬

[kecnry]

is there any consequence on performance between the two for this use-case?

[pllim]

Nothing that we have to worry about. I am using what Astropy now suggests in their docs. Tom R made that change upstream and he has been also working on modeling performance there, so he wouldn't recommend anything that would make things worse.

[larrybradley]

In my testing, TRFLSQFitter is about 4-5% slower than LevMarLSQFitter. However, this difference will not be noticeable here.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.50%. Comparing base (32bb09e) to head (2eae18c).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3202   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.50%   88.50%           
=======================================
  Files         124      124           
  Lines       18577    18577           
=======================================
  Hits        16441    16441           
  Misses       2136     2136           

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

[pllim]

Thanks for the review!