Undergo dedicated bug-finding and fixing rounds

[rohanplatts]

Purpose

To deliberately identify bugs, usability problems, UI inconsistencies, installation failures, fragile dependencies, and undocumented limitations, etc ..., in every workflow indicated to be supported in scope.md.

Substantial findings should receive separate issues. This is not for feature-gap finding. This is an issue for dedicated pest extermination in preparation for JOSS submission.

The repo has some demo files, and then has some accepted results, and has a list of python files that undergo those tests, that each merge runs those python files on those demo files that compare the calculated resutls to accepted results, dictating the pass / fail of the test

Completion criteria

• All testing to be done should be rigorous. Tests should be documented in comments.
• All workflows claimed in scope.md have been tested with demo data.
• test environments, workflows, results documented.
• Any tests created are audited,
• all significant scientific calculations given independently verified automated test suite, the 'Ground truth' calculations independently obtained.