ci: upgrade Codecov action

[sourcery-ai-experiments-bot]

Description

Upgrade Codecov action in GH Actions workflow to v4.

Fixes elixir-cloud-aai#218

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant.

• CI fix

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have updated the documentation (or documentation does not need to be updated)
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• I have not reduced the existing code coverage

[sourcery-ai-experiments-bot]

This is a benchmark review for experiment review_of_reviews_20240520.
Run ID: review_of_reviews_20240520/benchmark_2024-05-20T00-17-16_v1-18-0-51-g4c0d7e010.

This pull request was cloned from https://github.com/elixir-cloud-aai/foca/pull/217. (Note: the URL is not a link to avoid triggering a notification on the original pull request.)

Experiment configuration

review_config:
  # User configuration for the review
  # - benchmark - use the user config from the benchmark reviews
  # - <value> - use the value directly
  user_review_config:
    enable_ai_review: true
    enable_rule_comments: false

    enable_complexity_comments: benchmark
    enable_docstring_comments: benchmark
    enable_security_comments: benchmark
    enable_tests_comments: benchmark
    enable_comment_suggestions: benchmark
    enable_functionality_review: benchmark

    enable_approvals: true

  ai_review_config:
    # The model responses to use for the experiment
    # - benchmark - use the model responses from the benchmark reviews
    # - llm - call the language model to generate responses
    model_responses:
      comments_model: benchmark
      comment_validation_model: benchmark
      comment_suggestion_model: benchmark
      complexity_model: benchmark
      docstrings_model: benchmark
      functionality_model: benchmark
      security_model: benchmark
      tests_model: benchmark

# The pull request dataset to run the experiment on
pull_request_dataset:
- https://github.com/Speccy-Rom/Leetcode_aka_speccy-rom/pull/305
- https://github.com/W-zrd/unishare_mobile/pull/19
- https://github.com/emoss08/Trenova/pull/258
- https://github.com/emoss08/Trenova/pull/259
- https://github.com/albertobardalez/demo-marcas/pull/1
- https://github.com/jackdewinter/pymarkdown/pull/1080
- https://github.com/Remi-Gau/eCobidas/pull/307
- https://github.com/Remi-Gau/eCobidas/pull/308
- https://github.com/duyet/clickhouse-monitoring/pull/243
- https://github.com/duyet/clickhouse-monitoring/pull/244
- https://github.com/Xmaster6y/lczerolens/pull/23
- https://github.com/iphysresearch/Survey4GWML/pull/1
- https://github.com/eniocc/bdgd-tools/pull/32
- https://github.com/elixir-cloud-aai/foca/pull/217
- https://github.com/wearypossum4770/vue-times-news/pull/5
- https://github.com/bluzky/salad_storybook/pull/11
- https://github.com/yusancky/AllUp-Satwiki/pull/94
- https://github.com/gdsfactory/kfactory/pull/316
- https://github.com/gdsfactory/kfactory/pull/317
- https://github.com/agatma/metrics/pull/6
- https://github.com/nicholasadamou/i3buntu/pull/2
- https://github.com/marimo-team/marimo/pull/1411
- https://github.com/marimo-team/marimo/pull/1410
- https://github.com/marimo-team/marimo/pull/1404
- https://github.com/browniebroke/deezer-python/pull/1039
- https://github.com/JoftheV/opentelemetry-operator/pull/1
- https://github.com/osama1998H/spms/pull/66
- https://github.com/osama1998H/spms/pull/67
- https://github.com/osama1998H/spms/pull/69
review_comment_labels:
- label: correct
  question: Is this comment correct?
- label: helpful
  question: Is this comment helpful?
- label: comment-type
  question: Is the comment type correct?
- label: comment-area
  question: Is the comment area correct?
- label: llm-test
  question: |
    What type of LLM test could this comment become?
    - 👍 - this comment is really good/important and we should always make it
    - 👎 - this comment is really bad and we should never make it
    - no reaction - don't turn this comment into an LLM test

# Benchmark reviews generated by running
#   python -m scripts.experiment benchmark <experiment_name>
benchmark_reviews: []

[SourceryAI]

Hey @sourcery-ai-experiments-bot - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good

---

LangSmith trace

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.}