Actually format with ruff

[mattwthompson]

When I switched this repo over to ruff, I botched an important detail. It is split into two parts, a linter (think Flake8) and a formatter (think Black). At the time, I neglected to add the formatter to automation.

I tried to do this with minimal disruptions, but there just isn't a straightforward way to do that in such a large codebase. Most (estimate 70%+) of the changes are re-wrapping some things that Black was eager to unwrap in the past. This is evidenced by how the changes should be identical but the codebase is reduced by ~3000 LOC. (I'm fine with this, line lengths of ~80 are too narrow to me on modern displays.) This can be tinkered with by changing the line length config, but I left that in place.

• Tag issue being addressed
• Add tests
• Update docstrings/documentation, if applicable
• Lint codebase
• Update changelog

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[mattwthompson]

This diff masks two separate changes

• adding ruff-format, which did most of this PR
• renaming ruff to ruff-check, which is a change that happened sometime in the past few months. (See their boilerplate config.) If you saw something like ruff (legacy alias) locally, this is why

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 73.03922% with 110 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.64%. Comparing base (d70974d) to head (83aa50a).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[j-wags]

Preliminarily approved, but let's hold off on merging until the NAGLCharges stuff is done so we don't get the merge-conflict-pocalypse

[j-wags]

I'm resolving conflicts and will merge this before the 0.17.0 reelase

[j-wags]

Oh, some of these conflicts are substantial-ish. Would it be easy to reopen this PR from a fresh reformatting of main or is that a lot of manual work?

[mattwthompson]

I'll have a look

[mattwthompson]

I have the tooling happy (so far) via accepting all upstream changes, re-running the formatter, and removing duplicate code.

[j-wags]

Thanks @mattwthompson!