Refactors: Make kwargs keyword only for remaining packages

[nkphysics]

This PR is to address the remaining packages requiring refactors to make kwargs keyword only (#1746).

From the list in #1746

• astroquery/vo_conesearch (in this PR)
• astroquery/cadc (Cadc and Heasarc Kwarg refactors #2671)
• astroquery/heasarc (Cadc and Heasarc Kwarg refactors #2671)
  - [ ] astroquery/vamdc (deprecated since 0.4.2 ??? If I am understanding correctly)
• astroquery/cosmosim (has no tests other than docs which are all skipped. I can make refactors but if stuff breaks I won't know)
  P.S. Thought about forking branch from Cosmosim latest unittests #600 but probably requires more work than I think, might look into it in the future.
• astroquery/mast (can try to address DOC: make signatures more explicit in MAST docstrings #2665 later) (Seems to be a broader issue effecting more than Mast)

Hoping for some feedback on vamdc and cosmosim as I'm a little confused as to what's going on there or what you'll think is the best way to proceed.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2703 (af27a78) into main (4d0bb53) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 92.85%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2703   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   65.73%   65.73%           
=======================================
  Files         233      233           
  Lines       17842    17842           
=======================================
  Hits        11729    11729           
  Misses       6113     6113           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
astroquery/vo_conesearch/validator/validate.py	19.69% <50.00%> (ø)
astroquery/vo_conesearch/validator/inspect.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
astroquery/vo_conesearch/validator/tstquery.py	32.00% <100.00%> (ø)
astroquery/vo_conesearch/vo_async.py	38.88% <100.00%> (ø)
astroquery/vo_conesearch/vos_catalog.py	69.51% <100.00%> (ø)

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[nkphysics]

I'm marking this ready for review.
I can address astroquery/vamdc and astroquery/cosmosim once I know if we want refactors for them despite there being no tests for cosmosim, and the deprecation status of vamdc.

[keflavich]

Looks good to me. None of these changes look like they would break any standard use cases.

[bsipocz]

I can address astroquery/vamdc and astroquery/cosmosim once I know if we want refactors for them despite there being no tests for cosmosim, and the deprecation status of vamdc.

It's more than OK to skip vamdc (@keflavich - we really need to do something about it), but if you don't mind to add cosmosim, it would be great, so the we can say all is done.

Edit: ahh, I see your more detailed comment above in the OP about cosmosim. Sure, it's OK to skip it for now, and I would say that module needs an audit and either adding tests (at this point I'm not sure whether to resurrect either of the tests PRs or writing new ones is easier, but it does need some realistic test suite. Enabling testing on the docs could be an option, too). If testing is not possible, we could even consider deprecating it.

[bsipocz]

Thanks @nkphysics!