Add badges and a workflow for coverage

[JustinKuli]

See https://github.com/marketplace/actions/go-coverage-report

[github-actions]

PR Review

⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]	2, because the PR involves straightforward changes including the addition of badges in the README and a new step in the GitHub Actions workflow for updating the coverage report. The changes are clear and well-defined, making the review process relatively simple.
🏅 Score	85
🧪 Relevant tests	No
🔍 Possible issues	Possible Dependency Issue: The action ncruces/go-coverage-report@v0 is used at version v0, which might be unstable or lack long-term support. It's recommended to specify a more stable version if available.
🔒 Security concerns	No

---

✨ Review tool usage guide:

---

Overview:
The review tool scans the PR code changes, and generates a PR review which includes several types of feedbacks, such as possible PR issues, security threats and relevant test in the PR. More feedbacks can be added by configuring the tool.

The tool can be triggered automatically every time a new PR is opened, or can be invoked manually by commenting on any PR.

• When commenting, to edit configurations related to the review tool (pr_reviewer section), use the following template:

/review --pr_reviewer.some_config1=... --pr_reviewer.some_config2=...

• With a configuration file, use the following template:

[pr_reviewer]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

See the review usage page for a comprehensive guide on using this tool.

[github-actions]

Suggestion: It's recommended to use a specific version of the GitHub Action rather than the default branch or a zero major version. This practice ensures that your workflows are not broken by changes made in newer versions of the Action. [best practice]

Suggested change

	uses: ncruces/go-coverage-report@v0
	uses: ncruces/go-coverage-report@v1.0.0 # Replace with the latest stable version

[github-actions]

Suggestion: The condition for running the coverage report step seems to be intended only for pushes to the main branch. However, the syntax used in the 'if' condition might not work as expected because it's inside the 'with' block. It should be moved outside to the step level. [bug]

Suggested change

	with:
	coverage-file: cover.out
	report: true
	chart: false
	amend: false
	if: ${{ github.event_name == 'push' && github.ref == 'refs/heads/main' }}
	if: ${{ github.event_name == 'push' && github.ref == 'refs/heads/main' }}
	with:
	coverage-file: cover.out
	report: true
	chart: false
	amend: false

[github-actions]

Suggestion: Consider setting 'continue-on-error' to false for critical steps such as coverage reporting unless it's explicitly acceptable for these steps to fail without failing the entire workflow. This ensures that any issues with the coverage reporting are addressed promptly. [best practice]

Suggested change

	continue-on-error: true
	continue-on-error: false

[JustinKuli]

AI Suggestions Score

Category	Count	Comment
Great	0
Good	1	versioning actions is usually good advice
Bad	1	I'm explicitly setting continue-on-error: true for a reason, which should be clear in context
Terrible	1	The if is absolutely not nested in the with