ci: standardise workflows using SciML's reusable workflows

[thazhemadam]

Update the workflows in this repository to use SciML's reusable workflows.
This is part of a larger effort to standardise the SciML's CI workflows for more generic and common requirements, to keep the workflows uniform and easier to maintain.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (43f1a41) to head (a67c600).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main       #50   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files            6         6           
  Lines           64        64           
=========================================
  Hits            64        64           

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

[gdalle]

Where does this build the docs? And are they updated directly upon each merged PR?

[thazhemadam]

The documentation is still built on the same events as it is at present, i.e., on pushes to main, on all tags pushed and on all pull requests opened. The status quo is expected to remain unchanged.

ADTypes.jl/.github/workflows/Documentation.yml

Lines 3 to 8 in 0f86da0

	on:
	push:
	branches:
	- main
	tags: '*'
	pull_request:

[gdalle]

I mean on which website, does it go to a centralized SciML docs or does it stay here?

[thazhemadam]

Ah, I see. Sorry about the misunderstanding. The documentation deployments will continue to stay here, as specified in the deploydocs method.

ADTypes.jl/docs/make.jl

Line 11 in a67c600

repo = "github.com/SciML/ADTypes.jl.git"

[gdalle]

Sounds good to me, but I'll let someone from the org like @Vaibhavdixit02 review and merge, I only have rights to this specific repo

[Vaibhavdixit02]

Even though it passed tests in the PR the CI on master seems to have broken can you take a look @thazhemadam?

[gdalle]

I re-ran the failed workflows and it worked, I think it was just a Codecov glitch