Hotfix/make erd docker login

[andrew-jameson]

Summary of Changes

Adds docker-login ahead of docker pull usage per #3165 and this thread from @ADPennington. Also addressed an unseen technical debt issue that pipeline did not fail when artifact was not found.

How to Test

Latest pipeline shows passing make_erd and artifact now exists.

Deliverables

More details on how deliverables herein are assessed included here.

Deliverable 1: Accepted Features

Checklist of ACs:

• [insert ACs here]
• lfrohlich and/or adpennington confirmed that ACs are met.

Deliverable 2: Tested Code

• Are all areas of code introduced in this PR meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces backend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
  • If this PR introduces frontend code changes, are they meaningfully tested?
• Are code coverage minimums met?
  • Frontend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)
  • Backend coverage: [insert coverage %] (see CodeCov Report comment in PR)

Deliverable 3: Properly Styled Code

• Are backend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are frontend code style checks passing on CircleCI?
• Are code maintainability principles being followed?

Deliverable 4: Accessible

• Does this PR complete the epic?
• Are links included to any other gov-approved PRs associated with epic?
• Does PR include documentation for Raft's a11y review?
• Did automated and manual testing with iamjolly and ttran-hub using Accessibility Insights reveal any errors introduced in this PR?

Deliverable 5: Deployed

• Was the code successfully deployed via automated CircleCI process to development on Cloud.gov?

Deliverable 6: Documented

• Does this PR provide background for why coding decisions were made?
• If this PR introduces backend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces frontend code, is that code easy to understand and sufficiently documented, both inline and overall?
• If this PR introduces dependencies, are their licenses documented?
• Can reviewer explain and take ownership of these elements presented in this code review?

Deliverable 7: Secure

• Does the OWASP Scan pass on CircleCI?
• Do manual code review and manual testing detect any new security issues?
• If new issues detected, is investigation and/or remediation plan documented?

Deliverable 8: User Research

Research product(s) clearly articulate(s):

• the purpose of the research
• methods used to conduct the research
• who participated in the research
• what was tested and how
• impact of research on TDP
• (if applicable) final design mockups produced for TDP development

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.86%. Comparing base (3ed27eb) to head (dd27f69).
Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #3226      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    92.66%   90.86%   -1.81%     
===========================================
  Files           47      295     +248     
  Lines         1009     8437    +7428     
  Branches       169      789     +620     
===========================================
+ Hits           935     7666    +6731     
- Misses          42      658     +616     
- Partials        32      113      +81     

Flag	Coverage Δ
dev-backend	90.61% <ø> (?)
dev-frontend	92.66% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

see 247 files with indirect coverage changes

---

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 34fb345...dd27f69. Read the comment docs.

[ADPennington]

@andrew-jameson feel free to revert the branch changes on this PR. lgtm!