ci: switch Travis to Github Actions

[agnes512]

Notice that we were using mongodb 3.2 for Travis. That version runs into connection errors in GitHub action. This PR uses the latest stable version of mongodb (4.4) for Github action.

Checklist

• DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin) signed in all commits
• npm test passes on your machine
• New tests added or existing tests modified to cover all changes
• Code conforms with the style guide
• Commit messages are following our guidelines

[dhmlau]

I have limited knowledge on GitHub Actions, but it LGTM. Please see my minor comments.

[bajtos]

Great job, @agnes512! I have one comment to address, PTAL 👇🏻

Considering that our CI is broken right now, I think it's ok to land this change as-is even if it's breaking code coverage, and then restore Coveralls integration in a follow-up pull request.

[bajtos]

I believe this command is publishing code coverage data to https://coveralls.io/github/strongloop/loopback-connector-mongodb. Can you please preserve this step in the new GHA workflow too?

I think it should be enough to add a new step at the end of the file:

    - run: npm install
    - run: npm test
      env:
        CI: true
    - run: npm run coverage

[agnes512]

I was investigating adding coveralls to the workflow (run: npm run coverage doesn't work). But GitHub action seems disappeared 🤔 I am only seeing jenkins running. Not sure if I messed up something.

[agnes512]

@bajtos I tried to enable coveralls like https://coveralls.io/builds/32304908. But I don't know how to do it like Travis does. Seems like Travis has some repo token that coveralls.io would use. Not sure how this can be done with nyc + github action. I tried all possible solutions that I could fine but still have no luck.

Also, seems like the nyc report | coveralls still provides some coverage report (we had before as well):

and it has .nyc_output locally, which contains such reports:

Not sure if it's possible to have pages like coveralls.io for our case. Would you want me to invest more?

I also noticed that when we changed from Travis to Github action, we dropped the coveralls report for loopback-next. loopbackio/loopback-next#5110 Again, not sure how complicated it would be. But we might want to have the report for loopback-next. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks.