Fix test errors: codecov secret and missing package for docs

[adeliegorce]

This PR adds two elements that were missing for the tests to pass:

• Adds a secret for codecov. Although it is not required for public repos, uploads often fail when you don't have one. If you don't set one, it uses like a backup public token which has a rate limit (@steven-murray)
• Adds the mock package as a requirement for the documentation: building readthedocs is failing without (called in conf.py)

[adeliegorce]

To whoever reviews this PR, a question: why is there a list of requirements for docs in setup.cfg and a docs/requirements.txt file? it seems like the latter overruns the former? thanks

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (fac41f1) 95.99% compared to head (7f4d549) 95.99%.
Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #394   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.99%   95.99%           
=======================================
  Files          17       17           
  Lines        6113     6118    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits         5868     5873    +5     
  Misses        245      245           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	95.99% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[steven-murray]

Thanks @adeliegorce. To answer your question -- I agree it's redundant. I strongly prefer simply defining it in setup.cfg (or better, pyproject.toml!) so I would suggest removing the docs/requirements.txt, but other people have different opinions. I like defining all the requirements in one place.

[steven-murray]

You should update this to v4 as well

[adeliegorce]

I tried v4 but there is an issue that prevents codecov from finding the coverage.xml file. It is a regression issue currently being looked at by the team codecov/codecov-action#1278

[adeliegorce]

So for now I stick with v3 :)

[steven-murray]

Ah OK :-)

[adeliegorce]

Hi @steven-murray, thanks for the review. I have made the requested changes apart from switching to codecov-actions@v4 as there is a regression issue. Let's keep it in mind (or create an issue related to this) and do the update in a couple months once things are more stable.