Added ICDF for the exponential distribution

[gokuld]

What is this PR about?
Adding the ICDF function for the continuous exponential distribution.
Issue: #6612
Creation of tests for the added ICDF function.

Checklist

• Explain important implementation details 👆
• Make sure that the pre-commit linting/style checks pass.
• Link relevant issues (preferably in nice commit messages)
• Are the changes covered by tests and docstrings?
• Fill out the short summary sections 👇

Major / Breaking Changes

• ...

New features

• ICDF function for the continuous exponential distribution.

Bugfixes

• ...

Documentation

• ...

Maintenance

• Extended test_continuous.py with corresponding tests.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #6641 (d6a89d5) into main (6404805) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6641   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   91.96%   91.96%           
=======================================
  Files          94       94           
  Lines       15923    15927    +4     
=======================================
+ Hits        14643    14647    +4     
  Misses       1280     1280           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pymc/distributions/continuous.py	97.70% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

[ricardoV94]

Looks good, just a comment below about the test

[ricardoV94]

This shouldn't be needed, the check* functions already do this.

The reason we needed special logic for uniform functions was that the helper functions can't automatically figure out what is an invalid parameter, because it depends on both lower and higher.

For these simpler cases the helper functions try domain.lower-1 if you check the source code

[gokuld]

Yes this makes sense, thanks.
I've deleted the redundant checks and pushed a new commit.

[ricardoV94]

I suggest you rebase from main instead of merging so that the commits don't show up on the PR (see changed files)

[ricardoV94]

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71074242/github-old-commits-shows-up-in-new-pull-request

[gokuld]

Thanks, done!

[ricardoV94]

We will squash merge this, but for future reference whenever you rebase it's also a good opportunity to squash together commits that are not important on their own (e.g., fixing a typo introduced in a previous commit or, in this case, reverting the new tests you added in your first commit).

If you do rebase -i like in the link, you can replace the pick by squash prefix so that a commit gets squashed with the previous one.

[ricardoV94]

thanks @gokuld!