Deprecate modelchain.get_orientation

[RDaxini]

• Related discussion Fix typos in ModelChain error messages #2492
• I am familiar with the contributing guidelines
• Tests added
• Adds description and name entries in the appropriate "what's new" file in docs/sphinx/source/whatsnew for all changes. Includes link to the GitHub Issue with :issue:`num` or this Pull Request with :pull:`num`. Includes contributor name and/or GitHub username (link with :ghuser:`user`).
• New code is fully documented. Includes numpydoc compliant docstrings, examples, and comments where necessary.
• Pull request is nearly complete and ready for detailed review.
• Maintainer: Appropriate GitHub Labels (including remote-data) and Milestone are assigned to the Pull Request and linked Issue.

See discussion in related #2492

Original test test_bad_get_orientation(): only checked whether a value error was raised, the new test (with what I think is a clearer name) checks not only whether a value error is raised but also whether the error string matches

[RDaxini]

I could also add tests to check whether the correct values are returned according to the strategy provided, is this necessary?
For example:

def test_get_orientation_flat():
    surface_tilt, surface_azimuth = modelchain.get_orientation('flat')
    assert surface_tilt == 0
    assert surface_azimuth == 180

[cwhanse]

tests to check whether the correct values are returned

Optional IMO. I'm actually wondering why modelchain.py has this function. It was added in 2016 in the initial modelchain build and hasn't been used since in the ModelChain methods. There's a PVSystem.get_orientation method but that looks like just casting to a dict.

[RDaxini]

@cwhanse fair observation, are you proposing we deprecate and remove the function entirely?

[wholmgren]

Yes get rid of it!

[echedey-ls]

LGTM :)
Just a comment and a formatting preference down below.

[RDaxini]

@echedey-ls @kandersolar thanks for the feedback about the deprecation scheduling. Please review, let me know if the current version is in line with what you guys have in mind.
I agree with keeping something there for maintainers not to lose track of the issue, and retaining some flexibility in the removal. @echedey-ls let's update the deprecations tracker issue with this PR too.

[kandersolar]

Sorry, one more thing @RDaxini: can you also catch the warning in the tests using with pytest.warns(pvlibDeprecationWarning, match='...'):?

See https://github.com/pvlib/pvlib-python/actions/runs/16630932041/job/47059848104?pr=2495#step:9:84

[kandersolar]

Thanks @RDaxini