Add upstream testing

[benegee]

Initial setup.

We need to decide which tests should be run for TrixiAtmo.jl when downstream testing is triggered in Trixi.jl' s CI.

We need the downstream part in Trixi: trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2363

[ranocha]

You should also simplify the test setup so that we just run tests once without splitting into with/without coverage as we did in Trixi.jl.

[benegee]

You should also simplify the test setup so that we just run tests once without splitting into with/without coverage as we did in Trixi.jl.

So far we always run with coverage on ubuntu, and without coverage on windows and mac. We could run with coverage on all platforms, but then we would have to merge the results, right?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.68%. Comparing base (2e0e4ff) to head (3cbe01e).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #82   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.68%   90.68%           
=======================================
  Files          22       22           
  Lines        2189     2189           
=======================================
  Hits         1985     1985           
  Misses        204      204           

☔ 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.

[ranocha]

You can check what Trixi.jl does nowadays - in particular trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2254 and trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2261

[benegee]

You can check what Trixi.jl does nowadays - in particular trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2254 and trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2261

I did. If we would enable coverage on all platforms we would revert #23. To make it work, I think we would need something similar to the finish step in Trixi.jl. But that would certainly be a good idea anyways.

[sloede]

To make it work, I think we would need something similar to the finish step in Trixi.jl. But that would certainly be a good idea anyways.

Eventually you'll probably want to split up tests like we do in Trixi.jl for reduced testing times. Then you'll need the merge step anyways. I am not sure if you really need to check coverage on non-Ubuntu platforms though - I'd probably disable it to save some time.

[benegee]

I am not sure if you really need to check coverage on non-Ubuntu platforms though - I'd probably disable it to save some time.

Fine with me.
In this case we do not need a merging finish step yet, and this PR could be merged.

[tristanmontoya]

@benegee Is my understanding correct that this will make it so that when trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2363 is merged in Trixi.jl, the CI in Trixi.jl will trigger TrixiAtmo.jl to run test_trixi_consistency.jl?

If so, I am fine with merging this, so that we can move ahead with trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2363.

[benegee]

@benegee Is my understanding correct that this will make it so that when trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2363 is merged in Trixi.jl, the CI in Trixi.jl will trigger TrixiAtmo.jl to run test_trixi_consistency.jl?

If so, I am fine with merging this, so that we can move ahead with trixi-framework/Trixi.jl#2363.

Exactly!