Provide test coverage

[Vladyslav-Kuksiuk]

This PR provides test coverage verification via Codecov.

Resolves this issue.

[codecov]

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 ☂️

[Oleg-Melnik]

Claude Review

The PR wires up Codecov coverage reporting: a new coverage.yml workflow that runs go test with coverage and uploads to Codecov, a codecov.yml enforcing 90% patch coverage on PRs, a README badge, and a PROJECT.md note. It's config/docs only — no Go code changes. Overall it's clean and consistent with the existing workflows.

Findings

1. .github/workflows/coverage.yml:38 — fail_ci_if_error: true will red-fail CI on fork PRs where CODECOV_TOKEN is unavailable.
The workflow triggers on pull_request, but GitHub does not expose repository secrets (secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN) to workflows triggered by PRs from forks. With fail_ci_if_error: true, the upload step fails and the whole check goes red for any external contributor's PR — through no fault of their change. For a public repo that accepts fork contributions this is a real friction point. If contributions come only from in-repo branches (as this PR does), the risk is latent but still worth a conscious decision. Consider fail_ci_if_error: false, or gating the upload/token requirement on non-fork PRs.

Minor / worth confirming

• codecov.yml + only_pulls: true with push on master: the workflow also runs on push to master and uploads coverage, but the patch status is only_pulls: true and project: off. That's internally consistent (master pushes just populate the base coverage for later PR diffs) — just confirm that's the intent, since there's no status check on master by design.
• README badge: the branch/master/graph/badge.svg URL is the correct Codecov format; it will render as "unknown" until the first successful upload lands on master.

Nothing else survived review. The one item worth acting on before merge is the fail_ci_if_error behavior for fork PRs.

_{🤖 Generated with Claude Code}

[Oleg-Melnik]

@Vladyslav-Kuksiuk LGTM with Claude comments.

[Vladyslav-Kuksiuk]

Findings

1. .github/workflows/coverage.yml:38 — fail_ci_if_error: true will red-fail CI on fork PRs where CODECOV_TOKEN is unavailable. The workflow triggers on pull_request, but GitHub does not expose repository secrets (secrets.CODECOV_TOKEN) to workflows triggered by PRs from forks. With fail_ci_if_error: true, the upload step fails and the whole check goes red for any external contributor's PR — through no fault of their change. For a public repo that accepts fork contributions this is a real friction point. If contributions come only from in-repo branches (as this PR does), the risk is latent but still worth a conscious decision. Consider fail_ci_if_error: false, or gating the upload/token requirement on non-fork PRs.

That's the main purpose of this coverage check: to fail PRs when the coverage is insufficient. We shouldn't remove this behavior. Supporting forks in this way is not necessary, as they should have their own CODECOV_TOKEN anyway.