Use tox for unit testing

[edabor]

This PR introduces tox as CI handler in order to simplify CI configuration and enhance reproducibility with local testing.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 96.68%. Comparing base (48d2414) to head (8e4a713).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #271   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.68%   96.68%           
=======================================
  Files           4        4           
  Lines         965      965           
  Branches      123      123           
=======================================
  Hits          933      933           
  Misses         24       24           
  Partials        8        8           

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[edabor]

Waiting for Windows runner from #269

[user27182]

Something is wrong with test coverage. As a side note, project settings might need to be updated so that CI is red if coverage falls below 90% (similar to pyvista CI).

[edabor]

Something is wrong with test coverage. As a side note, project settings might need to be updated so that CI is red if coverage falls below 90% (similar to pyvista CI).

Looking into it. Sorry for having missed it

[user27182]

Something is wrong with test coverage. As a side note, project settings might need to be updated so that CI is red if coverage falls below 90% (similar to pyvista CI).

Looking into it. Sorry for having missed it

To be fair the codecov comment gave misleading checkmarks of approval ✅. I think project settings are the problem for not enforcing this and making coverage thresholds a requirement.

We lost coverage before too: #196 (comment)

Which I believe was fixed by #202. Might be helpful for fixing the issue here too.

Coverage... thanks user27182

[edabor]

To be fair the codecov comment gave misleading checkmarks of approval ✅. I think project settings are the problem for not enforcing this and making coverage thresholds a requirement.

We lost coverage before too: #196 (comment)

Which I believe was fixed by #202. Might be helpful for fixing the issue here too.

I'll refactor coverage settings in another PR if it is fine for you.

[edabor]

Coverage back to its original value