DRAFT: Order based on filenames or partial path

[Joacchim]

As discussed in #51, I've been fiddling with the module to try and see how I could fit my needs.

This is rough on the edges, and may not follow the project's development philosophy, but aims to be a first shot to be discussed and reflected upon.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #52 (e125278) into main (1e873d5) will decrease coverage by 2.20%. The diff coverage is 69.23%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #52      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.79%   95.59%   -2.21%     
==========================================
  Files           5        5              
  Lines         545      567      +22     
  Branches      121      129       +8     
==========================================
+ Hits          533      542       +9     
- Misses          8       17       +9     
- Partials        4        8       +4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pytest_order/sorter.py	93.27% <69.23%> (-3.44%)	:arrow_down:

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 1e873d5...e125278. Read the comment docs.

[mrbean-bremen]

Thanks for that! I didn't get to this today, will probably have a closer look tomorrow (bit tired today, brain not working...), but at a first glance, this looks good to me. There is not much development philosophy to this project, other than keep it maintainable, don't add unneeded bloat, and have a test coverage close to 100% - after all, it's only a small project. If you want, you can add a couple of tests, or I can do that later. Actually the change to use node ids as labels that I made recently makes this kind of change easier. I think it is a reasonable improvement, though we have to check that it behaves as expected with different options (like order-scope and order-group-scope).

[Joacchim]

I haven't tried cleaning-up the patch or even running the tests so far, I mostly wanted to push that out for you to read first before doing anything else.

Given your feedback, I guess I'll go a bit further on the next iteration, since it seems to be a :ok: :)

[mrbean-bremen]

@Joacchim - are you still working on this? Or are you waiting for more feedback?

[Joacchim]

Ah, sorry, I've slacked-off on this so far. If you want to take it up, please do.

[mrbean-bremen]

Ok, thanks. This is currently not a priority for me, so it may take some time before I get to it, but I guess it isn't that important for you either.

[Joacchim]

No, indeed. I wanted to make progress on my own project first and foremost, so I chose to work with the existing limitations