Fix bug in Kinetic normalization when pressure is present, add warning for this case to profile setters

[dpanici]

Resolved #1995

[github-actions]

Memory benchmark result

|               Test Name                |      %Δ      |    Master (MB)     |      PR (MB)       |    Δ (MB)    |    Time PR (s)     |  Time Master (s)   |
| -------------------------------------- | ------------ | ------------------ | ------------------ | ------------ | ------------------ | ------------------ |
  test_objective_jac_w7x                 |    6.97 %    |     3.800e+03      |     4.065e+03      |    265.00    |       44.57        |       36.73        |
  test_proximal_jac_w7x_with_eq_update   |   -1.02 %    |     6.581e+03      |     6.514e+03      |    -67.02    |       164.83       |       160.88       |
  test_proximal_freeb_jac                |   -0.29 %    |     1.326e+04      |     1.322e+04      |    -37.93    |       88.74        |       84.40        |
  test_proximal_freeb_jac_blocked        |   -0.12 %    |     7.528e+03      |     7.519e+03      |    -9.16     |       78.10        |       72.35        |
  test_proximal_freeb_jac_batched        |    0.30 %    |     7.502e+03      |     7.525e+03      |    22.64     |       80.13        |       74.88        |
  test_proximal_jac_ripple               |   -1.15 %    |     3.567e+03      |     3.526e+03      |    -40.95    |       70.10        |       66.37        |
  test_proximal_jac_ripple_bounce1d      |   -1.24 %    |     3.628e+03      |     3.583e+03      |    -45.04    |       78.33        |       77.10        |
  test_eq_solve                          |   -0.54 %    |     1.993e+03      |     1.982e+03      |    -10.78    |       94.60        |       95.41        |

For the memory plots, go to the summary of Memory Benchmarks workflow and download the artifact.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.52%. Comparing base (b725c98) to head (2743ac2).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2046      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.35%   94.52%   +0.17%     
==========================================
  Files         102      102              
  Lines       28676    28689      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits        27056    27119      +63     
+ Misses       1620     1570      -50     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
desc/equilibrium/equilibrium.py	96.12% <100.00%> (+0.28%)	⬆️
desc/objectives/normalization.py	96.55% <100.00%> (+0.39%)	⬆️

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[ddudt]

We should split this up like:

• if thing has either temperature profile, add the temperature scaling
• if thing has a density profile, add the density scaling
• if thing has a pressure profile, add the pressure scaling

And have them all be independent of each other. It might not matter now, but in #2090 some but not all of the kinetic profiles can be None which would break this check.

[dpanici]

Have we decided that #2090 is the way we will be doing this? I mean right now, the profile behavior is not well-defined when there is a subset. It makes little sense for these to be independent. Even in that PR change, I think that there should still be some sort of warning, or you can make the warning specifically consider the case you mention (which I think is that ion density profile may exist but no Zeff or vice versa?)

[dpanici]

I think this is the most I can split up without making the logic more complex, let me know what you think

[YigitElma]

@ddudt allowed me to use his previous approval for merge (which was staled due to CHANGELOG merge conflict)