Fix to bug with acc_lim flag not imposing Eddington limit

[michaelzevin]

hopefully fixed the bug that doesn't account for eddington when acc_lim>0 is set. I just moved this outside the large if statement, was concerned that this wouldn't work because of the white dwarf accretor with kstar leq 6 part of the if statement, but after reading through it a few times I'm pretty sure it should be fine (since the eddington limit is already imposed in that part)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #485 (6a7c826) into develop (898481f) will increase coverage by 19.02%. The diff coverage is 51.21%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##           develop     #485       +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage    30.43%   49.44%   +19.02%     
============================================
  Files           39       41        +2     
  Lines         7960     8288      +328     
============================================
+ Hits          2422     4098     +1676     
+ Misses        5538     4190     -1348     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
cosmic/evolve.py	55.42% <0.00%> (+55.42%)	:arrow_up:
cosmic/sample/cmc/king.py	17.71% <17.71%> (ø)
cosmic/sample/sampler/multidim.py	17.57% <20.00%> (+17.57%)	:arrow_up:
cosmic/src/evolv2.f	42.10% <23.08%> (-0.49%)	:arrow_down:
cosmic/sample/sampler/independent.py	56.43% <52.68%> (+56.43%)	:arrow_up:
cosmic/utils.py	82.70% <66.67%> (+82.70%)	:arrow_up:
cosmic/sample/sampler/cmc.py	89.02% <70.18%> (+89.02%)	:arrow_up:
cosmic/sample/initialcmctable.py	95.38% <94.44%> (+95.38%)	:arrow_up:
cosmic/sample/cmc/elson.py	86.73% <96.72%> (+86.73%)	:arrow_up:
... and 18 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 6107380...6a7c826. Read the comment docs.

[katiebreivik]

Alright @michaelzevin and @scottcoughlin2014: I've got the logic in the way I think it should be and I pulled the command to build the docs in the testing from the github actions since we build our docs separately anyway.

As a side note: do we want to keep the codecov/patch action going since it is still showing the checks as failing? I think we will never hit the target of 90% since we don't have a way to test fortran right now...