## Problem

Scheduling on tenant creation uses different heuristics compared to the
scheduling done during
background optimizations. This results in scenarios where shards are
created and then immediately
migrated by the optimizer. 

## Summary of changes

1. Make scheduler aware of the type of the shard it is scheduling
(attached vs secondary).
We wish to have different heuristics.
2. For attached shards, include the attached shard count from the
context in the node score
calculation. This brings initial shard scheduling in line with what the
optimization passes do.
3. Add a test for (2).

This looks like a bigger change than required, but the refactoring
serves as the basis for az-aware
shard scheduling where we also need to make the distinction between
attached and secondary shards.

Closes #8969

Closes: #8969

## Problem

We want to do a more robust job of scheduling tenants into their home
AZ: #8264.

Closes:  #8969

## Summary of changes

### Scope

This PR combines prioritizing AZ with a larger rework of how we do
optimisation. The rationale is that just bumping AZ in the order of
Score attributes is a very tiny change: the interesting part is lining
up all the optimisation logic to respect this properly, which means
rewriting it to use the same scores as the scheduler, rather than the
fragile hand-crafted logic that we had before. Separating these changes
out is possible, but would involve doing two rounds of test updates
instead of one.

### Scheduling optimisation

`TenantShard`'s `optimize_attachment` and `optimize_secondary` methods
now both use the scheduler to pick a new "favourite" location. Then
there is some refined logic for whether + how to migrate to it:
- To decide if a new location is sufficiently "better", we generate
scores using some projected ScheduleContexts that exclude the shard
under consideration, so that we avoid migrating from a node with
AffinityScore(2) to a node with AffinityScore(1), only to migrate back
later.
- Score types get a `for_optimization` method so that when we compare
scores, we will only do an optimisation if the scores differ by their
highest-ranking attributes, not just because one pageserver is lower in
utilization. Eventually we _will_ want a mode that does this, but doing
it here would make scheduling logic unstable and harder to test, and to
do this correctly one needs to know the size of the tenant that one is
migrating.
- When we find a new attached location that we would like to move to, we
will create a new secondary location there, even if we already had one
on some other node. This handles the case where we have a home AZ A, and
want to migrate the attachment between pageservers in that AZ while
retaining a secondary location in some other AZ as well.
- A unit test is added for
#8969, which is implicitly
fixed by reworking optimisation to use the same scheduling scores as
scheduling.