[ENH] distributions: move parameters for Monte Carlo approximations to configs

[smilingprogrammer]

Reference Issues/PRs

Fixes #269

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

Provided options for Monte Carlo approximations parameters to be overriden via _configs e.g dist.set_config(approx_mean_spl=5)

Does your contribution introduce a new dependency? If yes, which one?

No

What should a reviewer concentrate their feedback on?

Correctness of Implementation Also how else we can place the Monte Carlo parameters (for better code readability)

Did you add any tests for the change?

No

Any other comments?

We might need to modify the distribution test (or write one) to check for the overriden configs.

PR checklist

For all contributions

• [ ] I've added myself to the list of contributors with any new badges I've earned :-) How to: add yourself to the all-contributors file in the skpro root directory (not the CONTRIBUTORS.md). Common badges: code - fixing a bug, or adding code logic. doc - writing or improving documentation or docstrings. bug - reporting or diagnosing a bug (get this plus code if you also fixed the bug in the PR).maintenance - CI, test framework, release. See here for full badge reference
• [ ] The PR title starts with either [ENH], [MNT], [DOC], or [BUG]. [BUG] - bugfix, [MNT] - CI, test framework, [ENH] - adding or improving code, [DOC] - writing or improving documentation or docstrings.

For new estimators

• [ ] I've added the estimator to the API reference - in docs/source/api_reference/taskname.rst, follow the pattern.
• [ ] I've added one or more illustrative usage examples to the docstring, in a pydocstyle compliant Examples section.
• [ ] If the estimator relies on a soft dependency, I've set the python_dependencies tag and ensured dependency isolation, see the estimator dependencies guide.

[smilingprogrammer]

Okay, thank you. will add the test as requested

[smilingprogrammer]

I have removed the oversight PR and included the test. Is there a reason why it's failing in the pipeline? Or is there a code compatibility guide to follow?

Checked, and seems it's based on code quality

[smilingprogrammer]

Seems it's passed now. A "." - fullstop, was the cause.

[smilingprogrammer]

@fkiraly is there a code compatibility rule to follow which will allow the test to pass?

[fkiraly]

as the log says at the end, have a look at the log for that, you can click on the failed test job

[smilingprogrammer]

Thanks. Apparently it didn't pass because no new line was included after the last line of the test.

[fkiraly]

it still does not pass

[smilingprogrammer]

@fkiraly it passes again now. Somehow the problems is always from characters (no new lines, comment character exceeding lines, e.t.c)

If it's okay to merge now, let me now, so i can squash and remove the unnecessary commit.

[smilingprogrammer]

Hi, @fkiraly what needs to be done or corrected to get this merged?