CI: silence codecov for unrelated lines
I guess to check that this works we'll need to merge it and then see if subsequent PRs stop showing the unwanted comments? @jbrockmendel yes I think so. Checking codecov for this PR was not very informative. # [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600?src=pr&el=h1) Report
> Merging [#36600](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600?src=pr&el=desc) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/commit/7a9307b4713817d1fcbd855bf04897751a29d8da?el=desc) will **decrease** coverage by `0.00%`.
> The diff coverage is `n/a`.

[![Impacted file tree graph](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600/graphs/tree.svg?width=650&height=150&src=pr&token=eZ4WkYLtcO)](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600?src=pr&el=tree)

```diff
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #36600      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.20%   94.19%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         212      212              
  Lines       50332    50340       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits        47414    47418       +4     
- Misses       2918     2922       +4     
```


| [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600?src=pr&el=tree) | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| [pandas/io/gbq.py](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600/diff?src=pr&el=tree#diff-cGFuZGFzL2lvL2dicS5weQ==) | `88.88% <0.00%> (-11.12%)` | :arrow_down: |
| [pandas/core/frame.py](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600/diff?src=pr&el=tree#diff-cGFuZGFzL2NvcmUvZnJhbWUucHk=) | `97.44% <0.00%> (-0.12%)` | :arrow_down: |
| [pandas/core/indexes/base.py](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600/diff?src=pr&el=tree#diff-cGFuZGFzL2NvcmUvaW5kZXhlcy9iYXNlLnB5) | `98.61% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)` | :arrow_up: |

------

[Continue to review full report at Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600?src=pr&el=continue).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta)
> `Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing data`
> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600?src=pr&el=footer). Last update [0f6fc8d...d9149fb](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600?src=pr&el=lastupdated). Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments).
 @jbrockmendel seems to work :)  @erfannariman what change in this PR would "silence codecov for unrelated lines" (as the title indicates?) > @erfannariman what change in this PR would "silence codecov for unrelated lines" (as the title indicates?)

Might have misunderstood initially if I read the comments under this PR. I thought we only wanted codecov for the lines which is touched by a PR, and ignore the rest, that's why I named it like this. > I thought we only wanted codecov for the lines which is touched by a PR, and ignore the rest, that's why I named it like this.

Yes, but so the issue what (I thought) we were talking about is the fact that there were "annotations" (inline code comments in the "files changed" tab) about unrelated files, which is something alse as a normal comment on a PR. So therefore I didn't see the link between the changes you did and the problem. 
Now, I can't directly find an example PR where there are a lot of those spurious annotations, so maybe the problem has already solved itself .. (@dsaxton do you still see an example somewhere?) > Now, I can't directly find an example PR where there are a lot of those spurious annotations, so maybe the problem has already solved itself .. (@dsaxton do you still see an example somewhere?)

Hmm, I can't seem to find one either. Maybe it was fixed upstream? Example in an older PR: https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36434/files This looks already solved then. Should I close this? > This looks already solved then. Should I close this?

Could also give it a few days to see if any pop up? My guess is they fixed the behavior upstream (it was in "beta" after all), but doesn't hurt to wait and see. Found one 😄 (this one just opened)

https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36706/files

Edit: Another one: https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36716/files

I think making this change can't hurt, although I think we should be modifying the `github_checks` section. is this what you meant @dsaxton ?

The codecov report is updated after every commit, see [here](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600#issuecomment-698609386) in the edits. > is this what you meant @dsaxton ?
> 
> The codecov report is updated after every commit, see [here](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600#issuecomment-698609386) in the edits.

Yeah I believe that should work, although I think we also don't want the Codecov comments according to https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600#discussion_r494851317 > > is this what you meant @dsaxton ?
> > The codecov report is updated after every commit, see [here](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600#issuecomment-698609386) in the edits.
> 
> Yeah I believe that should work, although I think we also don't want the Codecov comments according to [#36600 (comment)](https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/36600#discussion_r494851317)

Removed comments > Git is complaining about no EOF new line, but otherwise looks good, thanks @erfannariman

there's a pre-commit hook for that ;) https://github.com/pre-commit/pre-commit-hooks (end-of-file-fixer) > there's a pre-commit hook for that ;) https://github.com/pre-commit/pre-commit-hooks (end-of-file-fixer)

Very cool, we might as well use it IMO ok if you'd fix the EOF issue can merge (and yes good idea to add to the pre-commit hook / separate PR pls) > ok if you'd fix the EOF issue can merge (and yes good idea to add to the pre-commit hook / separate PR pls)

ready @dsaxton I changed `comment: off` to `comment: false` as stated in the [docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments#disable-comment)
 Thanks @erfannariman I think this is working. Had some unrelated annotations on a PR, merged master and they disappeared.