ci(tests): Cleanup workflow runs

[crankynetmaam]

This PR cleans up our workflows to run on a per-app basis and upload things in the same manner. It also renames all of the make targets to test-application to get ride of behave vs pytest and all the confusion there. Now it just runs the tests for one of the applications. You can still call pytest and behave but the targets are all simplified. I also added a (neutral) type-check workflow.. It fails all the time (so we ignore that) but I want to run type checking in the future so I figure this gets us to where it's ready to remove || true once we fix type checking errors in the code base.

Finally, this adds a make target ci-act (act needs to be installed via brew locally) which allows you to test GH actions locally. Works pretty well.

I also restructured the Makefile. It was way too out of order and the names didn't make sense anymore as we've scaled things. Changes are:

Renamed:

1. behave-all to behave-django (it was all for ALL features (in django only lol)
2. behave to behave-django-feature (keeping this around but I feel like we should get rid of it or make it generic enough to work for translator behave too)
3. integration-tests to integration-django
4. pytest to pytest-django
5. pytest-scheduler to test-scheduler
6. pytest-scripts to test-scripts

Removed:

1. coverage.xml . We now just have per-app coverage steps inside the test targets. And we just now always run coverage cuz it's not that big a deal to do.

Added/Significantly modified:

behave-translator. This wasn't added, but now it has coverage, doesn't just run tests.
test-django. runs all tests for django (pytest-django + behave-django + integration-django)
test-translator: builds/runs stack + runs behave-translator
test: runs all four test-* targets (so in theory ALL test types)
ci-test: runs all CI workflows locally via act (old ci-test didn't mirror CI at all).
behave-translator-feature. Allows you to run just one behave feature for translator.

Should close #200 and #219.

[github-actions]

Scheduler Coverage

File	Coverage
All files	100%	✅

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against d5978e3

[github-actions]

Scripts Coverage

File	Coverage
All files	50%	✅
scripts/extract_env_vars.py	50%	✅

Minimum allowed coverage is 50%

Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against d5978e3

[github-actions]

Django Coverage

File	Coverage
All files	78%	✅
src/config/consumers.py	59%	❌
src/config/urls.py	69%	❌
src/config/settings/base.py	69%	❌
src/config/settings/local.py	72%	✅
src/scram/route_manager/admin.py	71%	✅
src/scram/route_manager/models.py	79%	✅
src/scram/route_manager/views.py	88%	✅
src/scram/route_manager/api/serializers.py	92%	✅
src/scram/route_manager/api/views.py	63%	❌
src/scram/shared/shared_code.py	56%	❌
src/scram/templates/403.html	93%	✅
src/scram/templates/404.html	93%	✅

Minimum allowed coverage is 70%

Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against d5978e3

[github-actions]

Translator Coverage

File	Coverage
All files	85%	✅
translator/src/translator/__init__.py	0%	❌
translator/src/translator/exceptions.py	50%	❌
translator/src/translator/gobgp.py	85%	✅
translator/src/translator/settings.py	91%	✅
translator/src/translator/shared.py	81%	✅

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

Generated by 🐒 cobertura-action against d5978e3

[samoehlert]

I see the 4 neutral checks that say "Run Scheduler Tests" but then they are actually for different coverages. i cant quite figure out why, but it would be nice to see that cleaned up.

[crankynetmaam]

I see the 4 neutral checks that say "Run Scheduler Tests" but then they are actually for different coverages. i cant quite figure out why, but it would be nice to see that cleaned up.

This was bothering me too. Unfortunately it seems to be a quirk of cobertura/github where it picks up the "check_suite_id" of the first check that passes and then considers that the parent check... We could rename all of the CI job names that upload coverage to just be "coverage" then whichever runs first that will be the parent name but I'd rather not. The right info is there now, it's just hidden a bit.

What we could do is just move to a different approach for those coverage messages (or get rid of them, but I like having them on the PR)

[samoehlert]

This will make CI so much more useful and less annoying. Thanks!