Update QA executable paths tests

[jo-basevi]

In an upcoming version of payu, model modules with be loaded using modules use/load in payu config.yaml files, and exe paths for the model/submodel will then be determined by payu using the PATHs added by the module.

• Removed QA tests for absolute executables paths in config.yaml files, and checking full paths in manifests
• Instead find the module version in config.yaml, and use that to find the released spack.location file. Then check the executable paths in manifests match an install path in the spack.location, as described in Check executable paths match those deployed for specified model version #18
• As ACCESS-OM2 has different repository and module for BGC configurations, and the only way to determine that has been checking if "bgc" is in the branch name, the above test has been moved into model specific tests.
• Added a start of ESM1.5 specific QA test class - under access_esm1p5 marker
• Added tests for access-om2 configurations - added skeleton files on two configurations to test low/high-res + bgc/non-bgc specific tests. While I was at it, also added a test for bit repro historical for access-om2 using a test resource configuration to check runtime and the checksum file were set as expected.
• Added test for module in released configurations be /g/data/vk83/modules/access-models( For example for access-om2 rather than /g/data/vk83/apps/spack/0.20/release/modules/linux-rocky8-x86_64)

This requires a new release of payu - as need changes to find exe paths using modules.

This test will fail if using prerelease modules, as there is not a released spack.location file.

Closes #18, Closes #29

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 96.49123% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.29%. Comparing base (a96160d) to head (a14002a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...rc/model_config_tests/test_access_esm1p5_config.py	87.50%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/model_config_tests/test_config.py	97.22%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #30       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   55.12%   76.29%   +21.16%     
===========================================
  Files          14       15        +1     
  Lines         624      658       +34     
===========================================
+ Hits          344      502      +158     
+ Misses        280      156      -124     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[CodeGat]

Just with regards to the PR comment:

This test will fail if using prerelease modules, as there is not a released spack.location file.

There is also spack.location files for Prereleases as well :)

Should the module use path in released configurations be /g/data/vk83/modules/access-models? For example for access-om2 rather than /g/data/vk83/apps/spack/0.20/release/modules/linux-rocky8-x86_64

I think this would be much cleaner.

[CodeGat]

Looks good. Just a few comments.