Add codecoverage, CodeQL analysis, dotnet-format

[sungam3r]

No description provided.

[sungam3r]

It works! https://coveralls.io/builds/34609689

[sungam3r]

@joemcbride @Shane32 PR is finally ready for review. I added new actions in test job for calculating code coverage.

Modified steps:

1. dotnet test began to produce lcov.info coverage file

New steps:

1. Convert coverage report to clover format ('Monitor coverage' works only with this format)
2. Monitor coverage adds coverage comment in PR (replace mode, only one comment)
3. Upload coverage to Coveralls, see https://coveralls.io/github/graphql-dotnet/parser
4. Upload coverage to Codecov. Now not working and disabled. I wanted to see what it looks like, but I haven’t succeeded yet. It seemed to me that coveralls has a not very intuitive UI.

Questions:

1. Do I need to move all new actions to run only on Linux?
2. Is it possible and necessary to do this in a separate job, so as not to resort to if: condition for steps?
3. What to do with master branch? It would be nice to do a test coverage on master too.
4. Should I try to get Codecov work (may need help)?

After we get everything in order here, I would like to add the same steps to other repositories.

[Shane32]

Very nice!

[Shane32]

Do you think we should add "html" and "htmlsummary" outputs to the build artifacts for the test?

See: https://github.com/Shane32/ExcelLinq/pull/3/files for necessary changes

Sample output: download artifacts from here:
https://github.com/Shane32/ExcelLinq/actions/runs/340792028

I'm going to do this for my private repos instead of paying for coveralls pro.

[sungam3r]

I was expecting this question. I also use ReportGenerator on my projects at work. We use TeamCity and there it is possible to display artifacts on a separate project tab, just point to some 'root' file to render (index.html). It's convenient, you don't need to download anything and the report is always in front of your eyes. The report really helps to understand what the code is not covered by the tests. In the case of GitHub Action, I'm not sure that someone will download this report as artifact. At least I won't, it's not convenient for me and I'm just lazy. For me it is much more convenient to configure systems such as coveralls or codecov to do all the work of displaying and maintaining coverage statistics. Of course, the question is how convenient these systems are and their cost. I have no experience with them.

I'm going to do this for my private repos instead of paying for coveralls pro.

What gives pro compared to what is given for free?

As a conclusion. I was going to read general information about different code coverage web systems to compare them and evaluate their pros and cons.

[Shane32]

Coveralls free isn’t free for private repos. If you’ve got a better solution for private repos, I’m all ears.

[sungam3r]

I don't khow, my primary goal are public repos like GraphQL.NET, Parser. etc.

[github-actions]

Coverage Report

Totals
Statements:	90.42% ( 1822 / 2015 )
Methods:	73.95% ( 318 / 430 )