ci: merge coverage with regular CI tests

[Borda]

This could simplify maintenance as the testing and reporting coverage workflows are almost the same, so let's add reporting coverage to the main one and drop the additional/duplicate...

[jarrodmillman]

We have the separate because we run the tests on multiple platforms and multiple python versions, but we only want to run coverage reports on one platform and one python version. This is the standard pattern on most Scientific Python projects.

[Borda]

We have the separate because we run the tests on multiple platforms and multiple python versions, but we only want to run coverage reports on one platform and one python version. This is the standard pattern on most Scientific Python projects.

I see, but with Codecov, id does a fusion of all received reports for a particular commit, and with the newly added flags/tags, you can validate what lines are visited only for a specific configuration...

Anyway, just a suggestion, and feel free to close it :)

[Borda]

@jarrodmillman, mind have a look or feel free to close it... :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 89.60%. Comparing base (024e49f) to head (6c20235).

❗ There is a different number of reports uploaded between BASE (024e49f) and HEAD (6c20235). Click for more details.

HEAD has 1 upload less than BASE

Flag	BASE (024e49f)	HEAD (6c20235)
	1	0

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #116      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.00%   89.60%   -6.41%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         250      250              
==========================================
- Hits          240      224      -16     
- Misses         10       26      +16     

Flag	Coverage Δ
Linux	89.60% <ø> (?)
Windows	89.60% <ø> (?)
macOS	89.60% <ø> (?)
py3.10	89.60% <ø> (?)
py3.11	89.60% <ø> (?)
py3.12	89.60% <ø> (?)
py3.13	89.60% <ø> (?)
py3.9	89.60% <ø> (?)
pypypy-3.10	89.60% <ø> (?)
pypypy-3.9	89.60% <ø> (?)
unittests	89.60% <ø> (?)

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[effigies]

This would really only be worth it if we had different jobs that covered different things. I don't see any coverage gaps that couldn't be handled by a couple more tests and mocking the environment, so I'm going to close this.