Switch coverage to codecov

[Kubuxu]

Codecov has, IHMO, superior UI and UX and support that actually exists than Coveralls.

Go repos either starting to report to it or switching slowly if they were reporting before.

Would js side be for the switch over all to Codecov, as I know you are using coveralls currently?
This would allow us to unify it over the organizations.

cc @diasdavid @dignifiedquire @victorbjelkholm

[RichardLitt]

Related to ipfs-inactive/project-repos#90 (comment).

[dignifiedquire]

I don't have a particular preference, coveralls was just the easiest to setup. Happy to take a look at codecov.

[Kubuxu]

I just seen that aegir doesn't have support for codecov, I am possitive that it would possible to add it in the same manner that coveralls is wired in using https://github.com/codecov/codecov-node.

I will create PR to aegir.

[daviddias]

@Kubuxu same feeling as @dignifiedquire, I just have the request that if we go forward with this, please make sure to track and update all of the modules (or divide the tasks), this is a lot of grunt work that takes a lot of time.

[daviddias]

@dignifiedquire is this change coming with the new aegir?

[dignifiedquire]

support for both is there already

[daviddias]

I feel that Coveralls was so much nicer, it would give me the UI of a single line in the CI checks that told me if coverage dropped, maintained or increased. Now with codecov we get this giant reports which do not translate to anything on the CI checks:

It makes it really easy to ignore

[Kubuxu]

I disable comments on all go repos and use Codecov interface and build status. There are two build status checks with Codecov: global coverage difference and diff coverage.

[Kubuxu]

If you want comments, you can configure them: https://github.com/codecov/support/wiki/Pull-Request-Comments