setup(coverage): add per-package test coverage reporting via codecov

[JakobJingleheimer]

Resolves #80

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

Adds per-package test coverage reporting via Codecov by updating the CI workflow and introducing a Codecov configuration.

• Introduces a new CI step to upload coverage reports to Codecov.
• Adds .github/codecov.yml to define coverage thresholds, flags, and comment behavior.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
.github/workflows/ci.yml	Added “Upload coverage” step using codecov/codecov-action
.github/codecov.yml	New Codecov config with per-package flags and status settings

[AugustinMauroy]

Suggested change

	with:
	directory: ./recipes
	files: ./coverage.lcov
	with:
	token: ${{ secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN }}
	directory: ./recipes
	files: ./coverage.lcov

[AugustinMauroy]

you I'll need to add token in the repo secret (action)
you can get it here: https://app.codecov.io/gh/nodejs/userland-migrations/new

[AugustinMauroy]

can we have badge for each recipes ?

[JakobJingleheimer]

This is blocked by node's handling of the --test flag, which makes nesting commands impossible because earlier flags get appended to the end of the subsequent command, and --test must be last but also must be set in the most subsequent command, creating a paradox:

CLI → root pjson → recipe pjson

In order for recipe pjson's test command to be runnable on its own (what recipe authors will expect / want), --test must be specified in recipe pjson. That causes root pjson's passed args to be appended to recipe pjson, and CLI's flags to get appended after that, super breaking recipe pjson when run in CI.

This could be fixed in node with either:

• src: support namespace options in configuration node#58073
• a proposed --test-files=PATH_OR_GLOB (flag name TBD)

[AugustinMauroy]

other solution (done on nodejs/nodejs.org) having one test:coverage script by recipes and on root doing something like turbo test:coverage to run all test from each recipes independently so we will have N .lcov file.

[JakobJingleheimer]

That's what this currently does, just via npm --workspaces instead of turbo

[AugustinMauroy]

oh right

[AugustinMauroy]

Suggested change

	"test": "node --no-warnings --experimental-import-meta-resolve --experimental-test-module-mocks --experimental-test-snapshots --import='../../test/snapshots.ts' --test-coverage-include='src/**/*' --test-coverage-exclude='**/*.test.ts' --test './**/*.test.ts'"
	"test": "node --no-warnings --experimental-import-meta-resolve --experimental-test-module-mocks --experimental-test-snapshots --import='../../test/snapshots.ts' --test-reporter=spec --test-reporter-destination=stdout --test './**/*.test.ts'",
	"test:coverage": "node --no-warnings --experimental-import-meta-resolve --experimental-test-module-mocks --experimental-test-snapshots --import='../../test/snapshots.ts' --test-reporter=lcov --test-reporter-destination=./coverage.lcov --test-reporter=spec --test-reporter-destination=stdout --test-coverage-include='src/**/*' --test-coverage-exclude='**/*.test.ts' --test './**/*.test.ts'"

[AugustinMauroy]

and run test:coverage on CI

[JakobJingleheimer]

Yeah, we could brute-force it like this. But that doesn't allow recipe authors to set extra flags / enable other features they may need.

I think better to just wait a couple weeks for the config options PR to land.

[AugustinMauroy]

both can work. I like to "hard-code" lcov output (I had done that on all of my packages) but other way can work