Define build command in asv.conf.json to enable support for asv 0.6.2 and later

[bdice]

Description

asv 0.6.2 and later changed the default build command, breaking our benchmarks.

This PR defines a build_command that appears to work, which is closer to the pre-0.6.2 behavior of asv.

Motivation and Context

See #1017 (comment) and airspeed-velocity/asv#1453 (comment).

Checklist:

• I am familiar with the Contributing Guidelines.
• I agree with the terms of the Contributor Agreement.
• My name is on the list of contributors.
• The changes introduced by this pull request are covered by existing or newly introduced tests.
• The package documentation and framework documentation in signac-docs are up to date with these changes.
• I have updated the changelog and added any related issue and pull request numbers for future reference.

[bdice]

@janbridley Would you be able to test this PR?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.24%. Comparing base (aa4968a) to head (1e0ae60).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1021   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   86.24%   86.24%           
=======================================
  Files          20       20           
  Lines        3503     3503           
  Branches      662      662           
=======================================
  Hits         3021     3021           
  Misses        331      331           
  Partials      151      151           

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

[janbridley]

Everything appears to be working on asv==0.6.4 with a pure python (no conda/micromamba) install. With a micromamba environment, I am still observing intermittent timeouts. It might be useful to set up a CI runner for the benchmarks? This could be paired with something like the validate label HOOMD uses for long-running test, and would standardize the benchmark environment to prevent future confusion.

[joaander]

We have dedicated CPU runners on Jetstream2 that could run the benchmarks with a consistent amount of overhead.

[bdice]

Thanks. I'll leave the decisions to you about whether to run benchmarks regularly -- could one of you approve the PR and merge if you're okay with its current state?

[janbridley]

I do not have merge permissions but this LGTM.