chore: Various cleanups I saw

[CelticMajora]

Description

• Switches to using invertase's analysis github action(annotates on PR)
• Switches to using zgosalvez/github-actions-report-lcov(comments on PR)
• Deletes and gitignores a couple files

Type of Change

• ✨ New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• 🛠️ Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• ❌ Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• 🧹 Code refactor
• ✅ Build configuration change
• 📝 Documentation
• 🗑️ Chore

[github-actions]

LCOV of commit 74dfb94 during alchemist #2

Summary coverage rate:
  lines......: 100.0% (344 of 344 lines)
  functions..: no data found
  branches...: no data found

Files changed coverage rate: n/a

[CelticMajora]

@definitelyokay Would love your input here. We had been using this action on charlatan and better_test_reporter to report coverage. Looking at very_good_coverage, it looks like it shares the functionality of gating based on a coverage threshold, but does not comment on the PR with the coverage report. The benefit very_good_coverage has over this is that it has built in exclude support. Right now in our other packages, we run a script to exclude the coverage by removing it from the lcov report.

[jeroen-meijer]

Interesting! I'm fine with using anything that works best for the package, though I think we might be able to defragment the landscape of these packages a bit of we submit a PR to VGV's action that adds the functionality we want instead :)

I wouldn't let that block this PR though!

Also, about the report:

• We usually export the coverage report using a separate job that adds all coverage related artifacts. This might be what you were looking for if I'm not mistaken.
• While the VGV coverage action doesn't add this report to the artifacts by default, it does tell you what lines are missing coverage if the action failed, courtesy of this PR I did a while ago. If this doesn't work as intended, I'd love to hear so! :)

[CelticMajora]

@jeroen-meijer like the idea of adding the PR commenting functionality to the VGV action. I can take a look into that at some point, but probably don't have the bandwidth at the moment.

[jolexxa]

I've added some comments to some of our open source issues relating to this! Definitely recommend using whatever is working well for you!

[jeroen-meijer]

Awesome, thanks both of you! :)

[CelticMajora]

Need to make sure that there isn't anything extra for flutter analyze that is needed here. Will get back to this.

[CelticMajora]

Poked around a bit online and I think dart analyze should be as strict or more strict than flutter analyze so I think I'd be comfortable using this action as it gives us the benefit of in-diff annotations of failures. What are other folks' thoughts?

[Kirpal]

I like this more, those in-diff annotations of failures are super cool! AFAIK dart analyze and flutter analyze should be basically the same since we have lint rules set up in analysis_options.yaml

[jolexxa]

This is great!

[CelticMajora]

Love the pana script and will probably try to get that running in our other packages 🎉

[jeroen-meijer]

LCOV of commit 74dfb94 during alchemist #2

Summary coverage rate:
  lines......: 100.0% (344 of 344 lines)
  functions..: no data found
  branches...: no data found

Files changed coverage rate: n/a

Ok, coming back to my previous comment about our coverage package, I got to say, this is pretty sweet... ✨