Fix checkpoint workflow one

[kinow]

These changes close #620

• Add an extra cycle point (so we can e2e test the Allow user to set the order of cycle points #658 )

Requirements check-list

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md and added my name as a Code Contributor.
• Contains logically grouped changes (else tidy your branch by rebase).
• Does not contain off-topic changes (use other PRs for other changes).
• Already covered by existing tests.
• No change log entry required (why? e.g. invisible to users).
• No documentation update required.

[kinow]

Couldn't get the succeeded state to show. We could update the tests, but it'd be best to take a better look at this workflow. Luckily @hjoliver offered to help on this issue 🙏

@oliver-sanders offered an alternative in Python that could fix the current workflow and also give a constant output to the checkpoint workflow (we updated the tests a few times in the past due to changes in the workflow output): #559 (comment)

[hjoliver]

Luckily @hjoliver offered to help on this issue

Sorry I didn't get on to this yesterday @kinow - at this point we probably need to focus on the beta release first though.

[kinow]

This is really outdated now. The fix will be either in a Python code to generate the desired data/states. Or in a Cylc 8 workflow that is able to have the succeeded state (which is hard/impossible? with spawn-on-demand)

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #624 (eb73c3d) into master (63e1a8b) will decrease coverage by 8.57%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #624      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.54%   76.96%   -8.58%     
==========================================
  Files          70       48      -22     
  Lines        1418     1120     -298     
  Branches      103       84      -19     
==========================================
- Hits         1213      862     -351     
- Misses        178      233      +55     
+ Partials       27       25       -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
e2e	?
unittests	76.96% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/components/cylc/workflow/lumino-widget.js	0.00% <0.00%> (-100.00%)	⬇️
src/components/cylc/Mutation.vue	30.00% <0.00%> (-60.00%)	⬇️
src/components/cylc/workflow/Lumino.vue	38.70% <0.00%> (-58.07%)	⬇️
src/App.vue	54.54% <0.00%> (-36.37%)	⬇️
src/views/Mutations.vue	37.87% <0.00%> (-36.37%)	⬇️
src/components/cylc/tree/TreeItem.vue	61.76% <0.00%> (-35.30%)	⬇️
...aphqlFormGenerator/components/BroadcastSetting.vue	0.00% <0.00%> (-23.26%)	⬇️
src/components/cylc/Task.vue	74.19% <0.00%> (-19.36%)	⬇️
...ponents/graphqlFormGenerator/components/vuetify.js	36.36% <0.00%> (-18.19%)	⬇️
.../components/graphqlFormGenerator/FormGenerator.vue	69.56% <0.00%> (-17.40%)	⬇️
... and 28 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 63e1a8b...eb73c3d. Read the comment docs.