Handle soft deleted workflow in supp. billing

[Cruikshanks]

https://eaflood.atlassian.net/browse/WATER-3999

In Licences in Workflow should not be considered we changed our FetchChargeVersionsService to exclude any charge version that was in the charge_version_workflows table. It was identified as a requirement that anything in 'workflow' should not be considered for billing.

When we tested we saw that when adding a charge version, for example, a charge_version_workflow record is created. Once the charge version gets approved the workflow record gets deleted. This is the same behaviour we have noted elsewhere.

But, during UAT it was noted there were licences (charge versions) not being picked up for supplementary billing which when checking the workflow screen were not displayed. Some digging found the reason.

Workflow records have a 'status'; to_setup or review (there is also changes_requested but we've not seen evidence of its use). We don't understand how the to_set_up records get added (probably during the import process). But review appears when you add a new charge version.

After some testing, we've found that if you click the 'Set up' link on the entry in a licence's charge versions, it changes the workflow's status from to_setup to review. When your charge version gets approved the workflow record gets deleted.

But, this is where our work has come undone! If you click the 'Remove' link all the service does is update the workflow's date_deleted column. It doesn't delete the record 😮😩

We don't know why they are handled differently. But we must account for these 'soft-deleted' workflow records in FetchChargeVersionsService.

Screenshot of setup entry

[StuAA78]

Looks good to me other than one place in the unit tests where we could destructure licenceId (as we did prior to the test changes)

[Jozzey]