DEP: remove external samplers

[mj-will]

This PR supersedes #1046.

It is made from the main repo so the containers can be rebuilt.

See the original PR for previous discussions.

[mj-will]

I've triggered a workflow to rebuild the containers: https://github.com/bilby-dev/bilby/actions/runs/25503395807

[ColmTalbot]

Looks like some change are still needed in https://github.com/bilby-dev/bilby/blob/remove-external-samplers/test/core/sampler/base_sampler_test.py, you might also pin arviz<1 until we support the new version.

[ColmTalbot]

Actually, it looks like I fixed this in https://github.com/bilby-dev/bilby/pull/1067/changes, so maybe a rebase will just fix the CI issues (other than the sampler side).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 70.59%. Comparing base (b54d31b) to head (a0c10c9).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1090      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   66.23%   70.59%   +4.35%     
==========================================
  Files          89       77      -12     
  Lines       17064    15141    -1923     
  Branches     2642     2355     -287     
==========================================
- Hits        11303    10689     -614     
+ Misses       5021     3749    -1272     
+ Partials      740      703      -37     

Flag	Coverage Δ
python310	70.36% <100.00%> (+4.33%)	⬆️
python311	70.55% <100.00%> (+4.31%)	⬆️
python312	70.55% <100.00%> (+4.35%)	⬆️
python313	70.59% <100.00%> (+4.36%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mj-will]

@ColmTalbot any idea where this dynesty failure is coming from?

[ColmTalbot]

No, but it looks like there was a new commit a few days ago.
Maybe we should make this test not required to pass since it depends on unreleased upstream changes.
I'll see if I can see anything obvious.

[mj-will]

I agree the dynesty test probably shouldn't be a required test (I think you might have changed that already?).