Reduce number of coverage files sent to CodeCov due to low API limits

[mlxd]

Before submitting

Please complete the following checklist when submitting a PR:

• All new features must include a unit test.
  If you've fixed a bug or added code that should be tested, add a test to the
  tests directory!

• All new functions and code must be clearly commented and documented.
  If you do make documentation changes, make sure that the docs build and
  render correctly by running make docs.

• Ensure that the test suite passes, by running make test.

• Add a new entry to the .github/CHANGELOG.md file, summarizing the
  change, and including a link back to the PR.

• Ensure that code is properly formatted by running make format.

When all the above are checked, delete everything above the dashed
line and fill in the pull request template.

---

Context: The upload of coverage reports to codecov is currently causing failures due to a failure mode similar to https://community.codecov.com/t/ci-failure-due-to-too-many-uploads-to-this-commit/2587. This PR aims to rename the existing uploaded coverage files to have names unique to each job run, to avoid contention on the server.

Description of the Change: Renames the coverage output files to also include the job run ID.

Benefits:

Possible Drawbacks:

Related GitHub Issues:

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (520b06a) 92.99% compared to head (2cc69fe) 99.07%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #584      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.99%   99.07%   +6.07%     
==========================================
  Files          58      201     +143     
  Lines        8540    29357   +20817     
==========================================
+ Hits         7942    29084   +21142     
+ Misses        598      273     -325     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[trbromley]

@mlxd can we squeeze in an update to here: https://github.com/PennyLaneAI/pennylane-lightning/blame/489cff75f64fb1ddb706a7e6fa27d1ae15f1c1b0/setup.py#L197
so that we instead point to https://github.com/PennyLaneAI/pennylane-lightning

(you suggested this a few months back)

[mlxd]

@mlxd can we squeeze in an update to here: https://github.com/PennyLaneAI/pennylane-lightning/blame/489cff75f64fb1ddb706a7e6fa27d1ae15f1c1b0/setup.py#L197 so that we instead point to https://github.com/PennyLaneAI/pennylane-lightning

(you suggested this a few months back)

#581 @dime10 already opened a PR for this

[multiphaseCFD]

Looks good to me! Thanks @mlxd !