Re: Add functionality for a custom outer boundary condition on `br`

[TrestanSimon]

This is a continuation of PR357 previously closed due to inactivity. Apologies for this inactivity, I have been very busy with school-related projects and have not had time to return to complete this.

I have now addressed the comments in https://github.com/dstansby/pfsspy/pull/357#pullrequestreview-1095129671:

• Simplified new arguments so that there is only one instead of two (https://github.com/dstansby/pfsspy/pull/362/commits/282e5874ff6bb999f0e8c1e9be2c6c1734d977da)
• Added an early check for matching shape of input br and br_outer (https://github.com/dstansby/pfsspy/pull/362/commits/3520afe9631b07fb52a4aded13e50317b9c7fb27)
• Added an example that compares the solution of a dipole source field when the default radial source surface is applied versus when a custom closed source surface is applied (https://github.com/dstansby/pfsspy/pull/362/commits/ced2e1f4fc588adb73aa6be53d295eda6891b7f5)
• Add a test that checks for consistency between the default solution method and the new solution method (https://github.com/dstansby/pfsspy/pull/362/commits/7167313401676e970ff87e1e9ab627ec7a3c0976)

[dstansby]

Thanks for opening this, I appreciate the time it takes to put something like this together. Because I don't have much time to work on and maintain pfsspy any more, I've decided to call it feature complete, and not add any new functionality. So unfortunately that means I'm going to close this without merging.

[TrestanSimon]

Thanks for opening this, I appreciate the time it takes to put something like this together. Because I don't have much time to work on and maintain pfsspy any more, I've decided to call it feature complete, and not add any new functionality. So unfortunately that means I'm going to close this without merging.

@dstansby Thanks for this message. I am aware that this project is and has been feature complete (from the docs) since before I opened the initial PR https://github.com/dstansby/pfsspy/pull/357 for this feature in August 2022 (cf with date of 66ac712b3f947bc5291cd7e6a182115c476b848c). I totally understand and respect this decision of course. However, you let me know that this feature was welcome via a very kind Google Groups message and https://github.com/dstansby/pfsspy/pull/357#pullrequestreview-1095129671 in September 2022, and also reaffirmed this two months ago in https://github.com/dstansby/pfsspy/pull/357#issuecomment-1508948460. So, I am kind of confused why you closed this PR now, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could let me know if it is no longer welcome (which, again, I totally understand and respect if so). :)