Fix path for unit tests badge

[rlskoeser]

My initial patch edit in #61 was based on main and switching the base for the PR resulted in a bunch of changes. Rebasing also for some reason was not trivial; so I made a new feature branch and cherry-picked the edit over. (Hardly worth this much effort... )

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.07%. Comparing base (ab2ab65) to head (84ce54b).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop      #63   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    76.07%   76.07%           
========================================
  Files           16       16           
  Lines         1960     1960           
  Branches       158      158           
========================================
  Hits          1491     1491           
  Misses         436      436           
  Partials        33       33           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[laurejt]

Given that we are actively modifying the logs for a release, switching between main and develop for a base will be non-trivial moving forward.

If we want to make a hotfix instead, I'd want us to make one patch with all of the small changes that I've noticed post-release.

[laurejt]

Happy to approve this, or we could alternatively make a single hot-fix branch that covers the collective small issues that have accumulated since the release (including the things flag by Dependabot).

Or, I guess we could just go through the standard development process and have a bunch of chore-like features go into develop, but then we should probably make a tentative timeline for releasing the patch

[rlskoeser]

@laurejt It would be nice to get the badge fixed sooner than later, so I'm in favor of a hotfix with the grab bag of small fixes you've identified that are easy to apply quickly. (Doesn't need to be everything.) Doesn't matter to me how you handle this PR since the actual edit is trivial (although I think it was a useful test of the new workflows).