Replace Travis with GitHub Actions

[asbjornu]

Replace Travis with GitHub Actions. Resolved #50.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #44 into master will decrease coverage by 10.44%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #44       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   82.22%   71.77%   -10.45%     
===========================================
  Files          22       22               
  Lines        8069     4043     -4026     
===========================================
- Hits         6635     2902     -3733     
+ Misses       1434     1141      -293     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/json-ld.net/Impl/NQuadRDFParser.cs	50.00% <0.00%> (-50.00%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Impl/TurtleRDFParser.cs	64.80% <0.00%> (-33.83%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Core/JsonLdProcessor.cs	73.62% <0.00%> (-23.49%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Core/JsonLdSet.cs	77.77% <0.00%> (-22.23%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Core/JsonLdOptions.cs	78.04% <0.00%> (-21.96%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Core/RDFDatasetUtils.cs	56.41% <0.00%> (-16.86%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Util/URL.cs	87.19% <0.00%> (-12.81%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Core/JsonLdApi.cs	87.88% <0.00%> (-9.61%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Util/JavaCompat.cs	75.83% <0.00%> (-7.41%)	⬇️
src/json-ld.net/Util/Obj.cs	21.73% <0.00%> (-6.39%)	⬇️
... and 11 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6bb4271...a219860. Read the comment docs.

[tpluscode]

Looking good but why the sharp drop in coverage? 🤔

[asbjornu]

Looking good but why the sharp drop in coverage? 🤔

I'm dumbfounded by that too. 🤷‍♂️

[goofballLogic]

Why switch away from Travis?

[asbjornu]

@goofballLogic, there are many reasons, but the most important one is that Travis has stopped notifying GitHub (see travis-ci/travis-ci#10204) so instead of fixing Travis, I think it's better to just replace it with GitHub Actions.

[goofballLogic]

That is very sad, but reading the background it appears to be the right call. I think we should have an issue for this to track the decision making process?

[asbjornu]

@goofballLogic, sure. I've created #50.

[asbjornu]

An approval of this PR would be highly appreciated, @tpluscode, @goofballLogic. 😅

[goofballLogic]

Don't we need to fix the test coverage?

[asbjornu]

Don't we need to fix the test coverage?

As the test coverage reduction has nothing to do with this PR, there's nothing I can or will do about it in this PR. That's not to say we shouldn't do anything about it ever, it's just completely unrelated to this PR, which we need to get merged to even get code coverage reporting working again. :)

[goofballLogic]

ok i guess we just disable the check for now...

[asbjornu]

The code coverage check isn't required to pass, so there's no need to disable it. Thanks for the approval, @goofballLogic!