Try to switch to CodeCov

[theogf]

Summary
The integration of Coveralls is a bit annoying (need to add a Bot as a collaborator). Also it would be better to use the same coverage processing with all repos.
Proposed changes
Move from Coveralls to CodeCov

What alternatives have you considered?
Adding Coveralls bot as a member

Breaking changes
None

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@7ce1c39). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #381   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   89.23%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       52           
  Lines             ?     1198           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     1069           
  Misses            ?      129           
  Partials          ?        0           

---

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 7ce1c39...234340a. Read the comment docs.

[devmotion]

I think it's fine, mainly also because it simplifies the CI setup (I don't think the app installation is problematic). It seems the reported coverage is lower than the one reported by coveralls?

[theogf]

Yep I think it's because of the parallelization of our tests

[theogf]

Looking into this, it looks like CodeCov and Coveralls count the lines differently, it's a bit odd...

[devmotion]

Looks good to me.

[theogf]

"Others" failing because of JuliaStats/Distances.jl#221 (try/catch not compatible with Zygote)

@devmotion what should I do here? Should I comment out the tests with SqMahalonobis?

[devmotion]

Maybe just upper bound Distances in test/Project.toml and open an issue so we don't forget to remove the bound once the problem is fixed upstream?