Rmove machine specific paths through auto infer via mache

[chengzhuzhang]

Summary

Issue resolution:

• Confirms and Closes Automatically determine diags paths #299
• Address review from https://github.com/E3SM-Project/zppy/pull/694/files#r2023394837

The new cfg produces same number of e3sm_diags output, as the earlier version.

Select one: This pull request is...

• a bug fix: increment the patch version
• a small improvement: increment the minor version
• a new feature: increment the minor version
• an incompatible (non-backwards compatible) API change: increment the major version

Please fill out either the "Small Change" or "Big Change" section (the latter includes the numbered subsections), and delete the other.

Small Change

• To merge, I will use "Squash and merge". That is, this change should be a single commit.
• Logic: I have visually inspected the entire pull request myself.
• Pre-commit checks: All the pre-commits checks have passed.

Big Change

• To merge, I will use "Create a merge commit". That is, this change is large enough to require multiple units of work (i.e., it should be multiple commits).

1. Does this do what we want it to do?

Required:

• Product Management: I have confirmed with the stakeholders that the objectives above are correct and complete.
• Testing: I have added or modified at least one "min-case" configuration file to test this change. Every objective above is represented in at least one cfg.
• Testing: I have considered likely and/or severe edge cases and have included them in testing.

If applicable:

• Testing: this pull request introduces an important feature or bug fix that we must test often. I have updated the weekly-test configuration files, not just a "min-case" one.
• Testing: this pull request adds at least one new possible parameter to the cfg. I have tested using this parameter with and without any other parameter that may interact with it.

2. Are the implementation details accurate & efficient?

Required:

• Logic: I have visually inspected the entire pull request myself.
• Logic: I have left GitHub comments highlighting important pieces of code logic. I have had these code blocks reviewed by at least one other team member.

If applicable:

• Dependencies: This pull request introduces a new dependency. I have discussed this requirement with at least one other team member. The dependency is noted in zppy/conda, not just an import statement.

3. Is this well documented?

Required:

• Documentation: by looking at the docs, a new user could easily understand the functionality introduced by this pull request.

4. Is this code clean?

Required:

• Readability: The code is as simple as possible and well-commented, such that a new team member could understand what's happening.
• Pre-commit checks: All the pre-commits checks have passed.

If applicable:

• Software architecture: I have discussed relevant trade-offs in design decisions with at least one other team member. It is unlikely that this pull request will increase tech debt.

[forsyth2]

@chengzhuzhang These changes look good to me. I already made the v3 release, but this doesn't affect the functional user-facing code, so it's not an issue. We can merge.

[chengzhuzhang]

Thank you for reviewing @forsyth2.
@wlin7 as I mentioned in an email, feel free to add a new PR to make update to the configuration file that can be more helpful to general uses..Thank you!