More advanced unittests (eg of analysis and generate steps) fail when run as GitHub action

[carlhiggs]

Describe the bug
As per issue #337, I attempted to include a more robust suite of tests to evaluate analysis, generating resources and comparison of regions as a sensitivity analysis.

However, I ended up commenting out most of the new tests as they failed when implemented as part of a GitHub actions workflow despite passing locally.

I suspect its to do with some kind of parallel processing, with the tests not running sequentially. I attempted to force them to run sequentially, but things still failed (and after looking at the test log, I'm not convinced it actually did run sequentially).

[carlhiggs]

re this, I had some success with the ordering, just by making sure the unittests were named alphanumerically sequenced (so, test_1..., test_2... etc).

But the error now seems to be internal communication between the docker containers -- db connection fails (oh, that should be a test in itself!)
https://github.com/global-healthy-liveable-cities/global-indicators/actions/runs/5451743372/jobs/9918347325?pr=341

======================================================================
ERROR: test_4_example_analysis (tests.tests.tests)
Analyse example region.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/ghsci/process/tests/tests.py", line 57, in test_4_example_analysis
    r._create_database()
  File "/home/ghsci/process/subprocesses/ghsci.py", line 144, in _create_database
    create_database(self.codename)
  File "/home/ghsci/process/subprocesses/_00_create_database.py", line 31, in create_database
    conn = psycopg2.connect(
  File "/env/lib/python3.10/site-packages/psycopg2/__init__.py", line 122, in connect
    conn = _connect(dsn, connection_factory=connection_factory, **kwasync)
psycopg2.OperationalError: connection to server at "gateway.docker.internal" (172.17.0.1), port 5433 failed: Connection refused
	Is the server running on that host and accepting TCP/IP connections?

[carlhiggs]

The last bit --- adding the database health checks and dependencies did the trick!

The workflow takes a while -- probably too long; could probably cut some corners (eg. probably don't actually have to do the full sensitivity analysis -- could duplicate results, modify them and pretend we did, then compare. That would cut time in half.

[carlhiggs]

The tests basically work, and sensitivity analysis only fails in a technicality --- comparison of identical areas triggers system.Exit() advising the inputs are identical. So, the cheeky work around didn't quite work --- to work it needs some numbers jiggled around...