[testing] test get_device_id for use in get_queue_by_device_id

[icfaust]

Description

Device id is very important for __dlpack__ support (used in #2275). The device id is given by dlpack and not queues. Therefore we must reliably construct a queue with the proper matching dlpack device (using a function previously implemented get_queue_by_device_id located in sycl_interfaces.cpp). This function is currently dead code that will be brought back to life in dlpack support. The device_id for this function come from the get_device_id which is exposed as an attribute to the backend SyclDevice (see sycl.cpp), which must be verified to be correct. We use dpctl as a reference for checking that our device id's are correct in python testing.

---

PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed.
This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.

You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way.
For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).

Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:

PR completeness and readability

• I have reviewed my changes thoroughly before submitting this pull request.
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• I have updated the documentation to reflect the changes or created a separate PR with update and provided its number in the description, if necessary.
• Git commit message contains an appropriate signed-off-by string (see CONTRIBUTING.md for details).
• I have added a respective label(s) to PR if I have a permission for that.
• I have resolved any merge conflicts that might occur with the base branch.

Testing

• I have run it locally and tested the changes extensively.
• All CI jobs are green or I have provided justification why they aren't.
• I have extended testing suite if new functionality was introduced in this PR.

Performance

• I have measured performance for affected algorithms using scikit-learn_bench and provided at least summary table with measured data, if performance change is expected.
• I have provided justification why performance has changed or why changes are not expected.
• I have provided justification why quality metrics have changed or why changes are not expected.
• I have extended benchmarking suite and provided corresponding scikit-learn_bench PR if new measurable functionality was introduced in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Flag	Coverage Δ
azure	77.96% <ø> (ø)
github	71.20% <ø> (+0.19%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
onedal/common/sycl.cpp	52.08% <ø> (+4.08%)	⬆️

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes