fix: simplify and fix codspeed workflow

[d-v-b]

codspeed workflows are failing because the workflow file refers to a nonexistent hatch environment. Also, the workflow installs python, which is not necessary at all. This PR fixes both things.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 12.86%

⚡ 4 improved benchmarks
❌ 11 regressed benchmarks
✅ 51 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 6 skipped benchmarks¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	WallTime	test_write_array[memory-Layout(shape=(1000000,), chunks=(1000,), shards=(1000,))-None]	1.6 s	1.2 s	+31.81%
⚡	WallTime	test_write_array[memory-Layout(shape=(1000000,), chunks=(1000,), shards=(1000,))-gzip]	2.1 s	1.8 s	+15.62%
⚡	WallTime	test_write_array[local-Layout(shape=(1000000,), chunks=(1000,), shards=(1000,))-None]	2.8 s	2 s	+41.08%
⚡	WallTime	test_write_array[local-Layout(shape=(1000000,), chunks=(1000,), shards=(1000,))-gzip]	3.2 s	2.5 s	+28.81%
❌	WallTime	test_morton_order_iter[(20, 20, 20)]	35.8 ms	41.1 ms	-12.86%
❌	WallTime	test_morton_order_iter[(30, 30, 30)]	122.5 ms	138.9 ms	-11.77%
❌	WallTime	test_sharded_morton_write_single_chunk[(33, 33, 33)-memory]	193.4 ms	218 ms	-11.3%
❌	WallTime	test_sharded_morton_single_chunk[(32, 32, 32)-memory]	1.8 ms	2 ms	-10.11%
❌	WallTime	test_morton_order_iter[(32, 32, 32)]	147.1 ms	167.5 ms	-12.16%
❌	WallTime	test_morton_order_iter[(8, 8, 8)]	2.4 ms	2.8 ms	-11.84%
❌	WallTime	test_morton_order_iter[(10, 10, 10)]	4.7 ms	5.4 ms	-12.08%
❌	WallTime	test_sharded_morton_write_single_chunk[(30, 30, 30)-memory]	146.5 ms	162.9 ms	-10.08%
❌	WallTime	test_morton_order_iter[(16, 16, 16)]	18.2 ms	20.8 ms	-12.47%
❌	WallTime	test_morton_order_iter[(33, 33, 33)]	163.9 ms	185.6 ms	-11.67%
❌	WallTime	test_sharded_morton_write_single_chunk[(32, 32, 32)-memory]	173.6 ms	197.2 ms	-11.94%

---

_{Comparing d-v-b:fix/fix-benchmark-workflow (6f503da) with main (7c78574)²}

Footnotes

1. 6 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

2. No successful run was found on main (9681cf9) during the generation of this report, so 7c78574 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[d-v-b]

looks like something added to main between the last successful benchmark run and this PR has caused a real but small regression in our morton order benchmarks.