fix(ci): run_material_map_validation.sh use v33.1.0 scripts

[wdconinc]

Briefly, what does this PR introduce?

This PR updates the version of the scripts used for material map validation to the version of ACTS that is used in the environment.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bug fix (issue: https://github.com/eic/epic/actions/runs/10800006504/job/29957261108)
• New feature (issue #__)
• Documentation update
• Other: __

Please check if this PR fulfills the following:

• Tests for the changes have been added
• Documentation has been added / updated
• Changes have been communicated to collaborators

Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?

No.

Does this PR change default behavior?

No.

[wdconinc]

Succeeds now and looks fine in artifacts at https://github.com/eic/epic/actions/runs/10946548910/job/30393563281?pr=779. The FPE does not seem to make the entire workflow invalid.

[wdconinc]

@veprbl The geoviewers are failing since we don't have a build_detector phase. I'm adapting the geoviewer jobs to use /opt/detectors/epic-main, see https://eicweb.phy.anl.gov/EIC/benchmarks/geoviewer/-/merge_requests/4. This will require that we trigger the geoviewer job from the container build, and not directly from here. Or did you have a different idea for this?

[wdconinc]

Force merged 🔨

[veprbl]

@veprbl The geoviewers are failing since we don't have a build_detector phase. I'm adapting the geoviewer jobs to use /opt/detectors/epic-main, see https://eicweb.phy.anl.gov/EIC/benchmarks/geoviewer/-/merge_requests/4. This will require that we trigger the geoviewer job from the container build, and not directly from here. Or did you have a different idea for this?

Yes. That would be in line with our current best approaches. My first reaction was to revert https://eicweb.phy.anl.gov/EIC/benchmarks/common_bench/-/merge_requests/91. In the long term, geoviewer should be just another detector benchmark, so it would do good for us to exercise it to run via a container build.

[wdconinc]

I think all we'd lose in the short term is the links to geo viewers on GitHub since we don't pass the GitHub CI tokens to post external statuses.