Simplify tests and remove uncessary config files everest/mathfunc

[StephanDeHoop]

Issue
Resolves #9210

Approach
Simplify tests and remove unnecessary config files in everest/math_func. Since (#9357) was a complete overkill will close that PR and work on this one. For the life of me I am struggling to remove either config_remove_run_path or config_fm_failure since they are completely the same except the fail argument. However, when I try to read config_remove_run_path and replace the config.forward_model with ["toggle_failure --fail simulation_2"] and set the log_level to info the tests keeps failing and I don't understand why.

NOTE: Test coverage should not have changed with this PR, only the number of config files that we check into our repository has been drastically reduced and some tests should be a bit more explicit in what they are testing.

(Screenshot of new behavior in GUI if applicable)

• PR title captures the intent of the changes, and is fitting for release notes.
• Added appropriate release note label
• Commit history is consistent and clean, in line with the contribution guidelines.
• Make sure unit tests pass locally after every commit (git rebase -i main --exec 'pytest tests/ert/unit_tests -n logical -m "not integration_test"')

When applicable

• When there are user facing changes: Updated documentation
• New behavior or changes to existing untested code: Ensured that unit tests are added (See Ground Rules).
• Large PR: Prepare changes in small commits for more convenient review
• Bug fix: Add regression test for the bug
• Bug fix: Create Backport PR to latest release

[oyvindeide]

This looks like a good direction! Removes a lot of duplication, and makes maintenance easier! I had a comment to one of the tests, we might be able to make some of the tests even more targeted.

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #9434 will not alter performance

_{Comparing StephanDeHoop:simplify_tests_and_remove_uncessary_config_files_everest_mathfunc (2f31e1c) with main (9ba5a28)}

Summary

✅ 24 untouched benchmarks

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.85%. Comparing base (bc8be8f) to head (2f31e1c).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9434      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.87%   91.85%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         433      433              
  Lines       26778    26788      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits        24601    24607       +6     
- Misses       2177     2181       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
cli-tests	39.74% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
everest-models-test	34.56% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
gui-tests	72.10% <ø> (-0.05%)	⬇️
integration-test	37.27% <ø> (+0.08%)	⬆️
performance-tests	51.94% <ø> (-0.02%)	⬇️
test	40.63% <ø> (-0.07%)	⬇️
unit-tests	74.19% <ø> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[StephanDeHoop]

Will squash commits after review.

[verveerpj]

Looks good to me, but I have one question you may need to resolve before merging?