Abstract `calculate_point_estimate` up one more level

[drewoldag]

Change Description

This PR moved the point estimation code to a core mixin class. This will avoid duplication if/when we move to introduce a Reducer RAIL stage.

Additionally, we call self.calculate_point_estimates in CatEstimator._do_chunk_output to avoid having to make changes in all subclasses of CatEstimator. i.e. we get point estimation for free (when a user requests it) without having to modify any subclasses.

• [ ] My PR includes a link to the issue that I am addressing

Code Quality

• [ ] I have read the Contribution Guide
• [ ] My code follows the code style of this project
• [ ] My code builds (or compiles) cleanly without any errors or warnings
• [ ] My code contains relevant comments and necessary documentation

Project-Specific Pull Request Checklists

Bug Fix Checklist

• [ ] My fix includes a new test that breaks as a result of the bug (if possible)
• [ ] My change includes a breaking change
  • [ ] My change includes backwards compatibility and deprecation warnings (if possible)

New Feature Checklist

• [ ] I have added or updated the docstrings associated with my feature using the NumPy docstring format
• [ ] I have updated the tutorial to highlight my new feature (if appropriate)
• [ ] I have added unit/End-to-End (E2E) test cases to cover my new feature
• [ ] My change includes a breaking change
  • [ ] My change includes backwards compatibility and deprecation warnings (if possible)

Documentation Change Checklist

• [ ] Any updated docstrings use the NumPy docstring format

Build/CI Change Checklist

• [ ] If required or optional dependencies have changed (including version numbers), I have updated the README to reflect this
• [ ] If this is a new CI setup, I have added the associated badge to the README

Other Change Checklist

• [ ] Any new or updated docstrings use the NumPy docstring format.
• [ ] I have updated the tutorial to highlight my new feature (if appropriate)
• [ ] I have added unit/End-to-End (E2E) test cases to cover any changes
• [ ] My change includes a breaking change
  • [ ] My change includes backwards compatibility and deprecation warnings (if possible)

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: +0.01% :tada:

Comparison is base (e6b0478) 95.56% compared to head (5a3bc45) 95.58%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #48 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 95.56% 95.58% +0.01% ========================================== Files 31 32 +1 Lines 1625 1629 +4 ========================================== + Hits 1553 1557 +4 Misses 72 72 ``` | [Files Changed](https://app.codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/rail_base/pull/48?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [src/rail/core/\_\_init\_\_.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/rail_base/pull/48?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC#diff-c3JjL3JhaWwvY29yZS9fX2luaXRfXy5weQ==) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [src/rail/core/point\_estimation.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/rail_base/pull/48?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC#diff-c3JjL3JhaWwvY29yZS9wb2ludF9lc3RpbWF0aW9uLnB5) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [src/rail/estimation/estimator.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/rail_base/pull/48?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC#diff-c3JjL3JhaWwvZXN0aW1hdGlvbi9lc3RpbWF0b3IucHk=) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | |

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[drewoldag]

@eacharles I took another look over this after the prompt to do so at the Monday tag-up meeting, and I'm not seeing anything that needs to change at this point. Was there anything else in particular that you would like me to review prior to merging this code? If not, could I request a final re-review from you?