[no-relnote] Enable CodeCov

[ArangoGutierrez]

This patch enables CodeCov to track or Go unit test coverage

PR Overview

This PR enables CodeCov integration to track Go unit test coverage. It adds a new CodeCov upload step under the "test" job and makes minor adjustments to the GitHub Actions workflow configuration.

• Added CodeCov action in the "test" job.
• Configured environment variables for Go version extraction.
• Maintained setup consistency across testing and build steps.

Reviewed Changes

File	Description
.github/workflows/golang.yaml	Added CodeCov step for coverage reporting and adjusted version setup

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.

Comments suppressed due to low confidence (1)

.github/workflows/golang.yaml:96

• The variable substitution operator differs from the one in the test job (':='). Consider using the consistent syntax ':=' for extracting GOLANG_VERSION unless the differing behavior is intentional.

echo "GOLANG_VERSION=${GOLANG_VERSION##GOLANG_VERSION ?= }" >> $GITHUB_ENV

[codecov-commenter]

Welcome to Codecov 🎉

Once you merge this PR into your default branch, you're all set! Codecov will compare coverage reports and display results in all future pull requests.

Thanks for integrating Codecov - We've got you covered ☂️

[ArangoGutierrez]

umm let's leave this for later on, we might need to move Go actions to hosted runners if we want to pass the secret during PR

[elezar]

Should we change this to make coverage instead?

[ArangoGutierrez]

Well, it actually makes sense from the perspective of a Makefile file functionality; make coverage would actually generate an output artifact. So I am not against it, I'll leave it as your call

[elezar]

Don't we need the coverage.out artifact?

[elezar]

Do we want to block CI on an external system failing?

[elezar]

umm let's leave this for later on, we might need to move Go actions to hosted runners if we want to pass the secret during PR

That's not true. Secrets are not available on PRs from forks, but should be available from the pull-request branches. (or is this not essentially the same issue as publishing images). Another note, we only need to run the "upload to codecove" step in the internal runners consuming the coverage file generated in a previous step.

[ArangoGutierrez]

umm let's leave this for later on, we might need to move Go actions to hosted runners if we want to pass the secret during PR

That's not true. Secrets are not available on PRs from forks, but should be available from the pull-request branches. (or is this not essentially the same issue as publishing images). Another note, we only need to run the "upload to codecove" step in the internal runners consuming the coverage file generated in a previous step.

ture, I forgot about copy-pr-bot I was thinking in the old way o passing secrets. still will retake this PR after we cut the release

[ArangoGutierrez]

/ok to test

[ArangoGutierrez]

Here's a look of how we would be able to visualize the results

https://app.codecov.io/gh/NVIDIA/nvidia-container-toolkit

[ArangoGutierrez]

@tariq1890 if you like this, we could replace the coversall implementation on the other repos

[elezar]

@ArangoGutierrez as a general question, how does CodeCov compare to coversall that @tariq1890 was using? I was under the impression that CodeCov is a paid service.

[ArangoGutierrez]

@ArangoGutierrez as a general question, how does CodeCov compare to coversall that @tariq1890 was using? I was under the impression that CodeCov is a paid service.

It is free for OSS repos.