Implement GitHub Actions w/ codecov reports

[kherock]

Closes #627. This includes #600 and includes the test matrix I was working on before #637 was opened. It seems like there are some open file handle issues in the POST Object middleware that's causing a decent chunk of the test suite to fail on Windows.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@563b259). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #681   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   88.82%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       20           
  Lines             ?     1351           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     1200           
  Misses            ?      151           
  Partials          ?        0           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 563b259...5843a2a. Read the comment docs.

[kherock]

@jamhall any objection with migrating to main as the default branch? Just trying to avoid introducing a dependency on master as the default branch here.

[kherock]

Also, this closes #636 since package-lock.json is needed to run the npm ci and npm audit commands.

[fishcharlie]

Looks really great!!!

[fishcharlie]

Not a huge deal. But I tend to suggest that naming is more specific for GitHub Actions workflows. If you ever want to add workflows to close stale issues, tag PRs, publish new versions, etc. those will tend to be different workflows. Which would make this name confusing since it's so general.

For Dynamoose we use CI. Not sure that makes the most amount of sense tho.

Suggested change

	name: s3rver
	name: CI

---

I also think it'd be valuable to have the name match the file name.

---

Super nit-picky, but I thought it was worth at least mentioning.

[kherock]

CI makes enough sense to me, and thank you for giving me a new pet peeve for when I'm looking at other projects' actions 😄.

[fishcharlie]

Any purpose for limiting branches here? Are there certain branches we don't want this to run on, and why?

[ad-m]

The branch limitation avoids double building in case of pushing and immediately creates a pull request by the project developer. However, for this purpose it is enough to limit the branches for pushs.

[fishcharlie]

Is this going to be the prioritized PR or is #677?

[fishcharlie]

Looks like we also have some CI failures here. Looks like most of it is around Windows FS permissions.

[kherock]

Is this going to be the prioritized PR or is #677?

There's still a decent amount of work ahead before it makes sense to start publishing Docker images for 4.x, so I'd like to get this in first.

[jamhall]

@kherock

@jamhall any objection with migrating to main as the default branch? Just trying to avoid introducing a dependency on master as the default branch here.

Nopes. No objection from me :)

[kherock]

Great, could you rename the branch from the tab in repo settings? It'll automatically move all the PRs over once you do that.

[jamhall]

Great, could you rename the branch from the tab in repo settings? It'll automatically move all the PRs over once you do that.

Hi @kherock - it's done