TST,BUG: test adjustment forgotten in gh-20256 - #20262

Thank you for your contribution to Astropy! 🌌 This checklist is meant to remind the package maintainers who will review this pull request of some common things to look for.

• Do the proposed changes actually accomplish desired goals?
• Do the proposed changes follow the Astropy coding guidelines?
• Are tests added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy testing guidelines?
• Are docs added/updated as required? If so, do they follow the Astropy documentation guidelines?
• Is rebase and/or squash necessary? If so, please provide the author with appropriate instructions. Also see instructions for rebase and squash.
• Did the CI pass? If no, are the failures related? If you need to run daily and weekly cron jobs as part of the PR, please apply the "Extra CI" label. Codestyle issues can be fixed by the bot.
• Is a change log needed? If yes, did the change log check pass? If no, add the "no-changelog-entry-needed" label. If this is a manual backport, use the "skip-changelog-checks" label unless special changelog handling is necessary.
• Is this a big PR that makes a "What's new?" entry worthwhile and if so, is (1) a "what's new" entry included in this PR and (2) the "whatsnew-needed" label applied?
• At the time of adding the milestone, if the milestone set requires a backport to release branch(es), apply the appropriate "backport-X.Y.x" label(s) before merge.

@pllim - I broke -devdeps by merging #20256 without a careful check. Could you have a look at this fix?

OK, devdeps passes here.

@e:/Codex/Scratch/astropy_20262_comment.md

Huh what was this. Is this @CAOShurong an AI agent?

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for flagging it — that quoted `@e:/...` line was a leftover from my drafting workflow: I compose longer comments locally before posting, and a scratch-file reference line accidentally got into the first version of the comment above (it has since been removed by edit).

To answer your question directly: yes, I use AI-assisted tooling as part of how I work on issues and PRs. The verification reported above was still a real run — CPython 3.13 on Windows, running test_iers.py at the merge commit 9f4de8d6 (reproduced the failure: DID NOT RAISE ValueError) and at this PR's head 086e1d35 (passes) — and I stand behind its accuracy.

If the Astropy team settles on any disclosure convention for AI-assisted contributions, I'm glad to follow it.

@CAOShurong - yes, we now have an AI disclosure part for PRs; work like yours where it is used as a tool is welcome.