Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• Is a milestone set? Milestone must be set but we cannot check for it on Actions; do not let the green checkmark fool you.
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

👋 Thank you for your draft pull request! Do you know that you can use [ci skip] or [skip ci] in your commit messages to skip running continuous integration tests until you are ready?

tests hit an unrelated error:

AttributeError: module 'IPython.lib.pretty' has no attribute '_deferred_pprinters'. Did you mean: '_deferred_type_pprinters'?

which I assume is due to usage of private IPython API, which was supposedly changed in IPython 8.15.0 (released on Sept 1st).
I'll open this for review even with failures when I'm confident that what I'm fixing is dealt with.

in fact the other error is from hypothesis, not astropy. See report upstream HypothesisWorks/hypothesis#3731

Thanks for the PR and investigating the hypothesis failure!
There is already a fix addressing the np._round removal in #15266 (I recommend to search existing issues first to avoid duplicating work), but if we choose to use this one, I'd run the extra CI here first.

Fix for hypothesis has already been merged, so I'd perhaps just wait if they make a bugfix release soonish.

Sorry I didn't think of checking first, I'll close this as a dup then !

Thanks anyway!

I don't see the hypothesis error anymore.

Yes, it's been resolved upstream !