Specify code coverage as a static value.

[matthiask]

No description provided.

[matthiask]

@tim-schilling I added your suggestion here as a separate pull request, we can continue the discussion here.

cc @pauloxnet

[pauloxnet]

@matthiask can you resolve conflicts ?

[pauloxnet]

@matthiask the PR is ready to merge. I see it's still in draft. There's a reason or you can simply remove the draft tag ?

[matthiask]

@matthiask the PR is ready to merge. I see it's still in draft. There's a reason or you can simply remove the draft tag ?

I opened it as a draft because I wasn't sure whether it is a good idea to hardcode the coverage percentage. I'm marking it as ready for review now because I'm basically neutral, not opposed to this.

[tim-schilling]

@matthiask what do you think about that gist revision approach? I'd prefer not to set it statically, but I will if it means the alternative is not having it.

[matthiask]

@matthiask what do you think about that gist revision approach? I'd prefer not to set it statically, but I will if it means the alternative is not having it.

This looks interesting! I suspect that we'd need Jannis' help for this because we don't have access to the repository settings?

I'd merge this pull request and open an issue to re-investigate later if there's a better solution, maybe directly offered by GitHub or someone.

[tim-schilling]

I added a comment indicating to change the readme's coverage badge link in case we don't replace this in the future.