ci(codecov): fix codecov / jest coverage misconfigurations

[mcous]

Overview

Upon some investigation for #8185, it turns out that the port from TravisCI to incremental builds in GitHub Actions never properly configured code coverage reporting for all of our JS projects, which explains our blatantly wrong coverage percentage in codecov.

This PR fixes coverage uploads and sets up per-project Codecov flags to see if that makes a meaningful improvement to coverage comments in PRs.

Closes #4985, closes #8185

Changelog

• Ensure unit-test CI workflows actually upload coverage reports
• Add JS unit tests to shared-data CI
• Upgrade to codecov-action v2
• Configure Codecov with per-project flags and carry-forward flags for incremental monorepo build support

Review requests

• Give the config changes a look over and see if they make sense
• If we merge this, should we nuke our Codecov data and start fresh?
  • I think yes, the historical data is so messed up that I can't see any value in keeping it

Risk assessment

N/A, CI config

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #8190 (b8a3bb8) into edge (65d64ae) will decrease coverage by 12.73%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             edge    #8190       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   87.44%   74.71%   -12.74%     
===========================================
  Files         444     1650     +1206     
  Lines       22817    44112    +21295     
  Branches        0     4408     +4408     
===========================================
+ Hits        19952    32957    +13005     
- Misses       2865    10411     +7546     
- Partials        0      744      +744     

Flag	Coverage Δ
api	85.68% <ø> (?)
app	70.51% <ø> (?)
components	48.76% <ø> (?)
labware-library	50.22% <ø> (?)
protocol-designer	44.15% <ø> (?)
robot-server	93.42% <ø> (?)
shared-data	84.14% <ø> (?)
step-generation	90.33% <ø> (?)
update-server	74.12% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...obot-server/robot_server/sessions/action_models.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
...ing/g_code_functionality_defs/tempdeck/__init__.py
...cycler/edit_pid_params_g_code_functionality_def.py
opentrons/protocol_engine/clients/transports.py
opentrons/commands/util.py
opentrons/drivers/rpi_drivers/interfaces.py
opentrons/file_runner/create_file_runner.py
...mocycler/set_ramp_rate_g_code_functionality_def.py
opentrons/protocol_engine/commands/dispense.py
...ie/write_instrument_id_g_code_functionality_def.py
... and 1816 more

[mcous]

This was present to preserve historical coverage data. Given that our coverage history is fairly messed up at this point, I figured we could remove it for a more straightforward experience.

With this line in place, the codecov UI presents an opentrons folder instead of an api folder, which is confusing

[mcous]

These don't exist anymore

[mcous]

These are redundant with the JSON ignore line below

[mcous]

This was just wrong; jest/Istanbul writes to coverage/lcov.info by default

[SyntaxColoring]

I guess there's not really any way to be sure other than testing this in "production," but this looks sensible to me!

Edit:

• If we merge this, should we nuke our Codecov data and start fresh?
• I think yes, the historical data is so messed up that I can't see any value in keeping it

Agreed.