Use codecov-action to upload test results

[5ouma]

⚠️ Issue

close #

✏️ Description

Use the same action as the upstream specifies.

• I agree to follow the Code of Conduct.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Updates the CI workflow’s Codecov integration to upload test results using codecov/codecov-action, aligning it with the existing coverage upload approach.

Changes:

• Replace codecov/test-results-action with codecov/codecov-action for test result uploads.
• Add report_type: test_results to the test results upload step.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

You can also share your feedback on Copilot code review. Take the survey.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: dbfa88cf-d11a-4f65-bfe4-3b8299228ed9

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fb5be5c and 5dd728b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/workflows/ci.yml

---

Walkthrough

The CI workflow's Codecov test results upload step is updated from codecov/test-results-action to codecov-action with an added report_type: test_results parameter. The authentication token is preserved.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
CI Workflow Configuration .github/workflows/ci.yml	Replaced test results reporting action from codecov/test-results-action to codecov-action and added report_type configuration parameter.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: replacing the test results upload step with codecov-action.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is related to the changeset, explaining the rationale for using the upstream-specified action, though it lacks specific detail about the changes.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch ci-ci-codecov-action-report-type

📝 Coding Plan

• Generate coding plan for human review comments

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (fb5be5c) to head (5dd728b).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #391   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            6         6           
  Lines          115       115           
  Branches         9         9           
=========================================
  Hits           115       115           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.