Retain input ordering in loadscope

[Toad2186]

• Optionally retain input ordering in loadscope for tests where relative ordering matters. i.e. guarantee that, given [input_1, input_2], input_2 never runs before input_1. On any given worker, either input_1 has ran before input_2, or input_1 has never and will never run on this worker.

Thanks for submitting a PR, your contribution is really appreciated!

Here's a quick checklist that should be present in PRs:

• Make sure to include reasonable tests for your change if necessary

• We use towncrier for changelog management, so please add a news file into the changelog folder following these guidelines:

  • Name it $issue_id.$type for example 588.bugfix;

  • If you don't have an issue_id change it to the PR id after creating it

  • Ensure type is one of removal, feature, bugfix, vendor, doc or trivial

  • Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation, for example:

    Fix issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files.
    

[zacharyburnett]

this would be very helpful for slow tests in small modules

[zacharyburnett]

if this is going into CHANGELOG.rst, these backticks should be double, I think

Suggested change

	With `--no-loadscope-reorder`, retain input ordering in loadscope for tests where relative ordering matters. i.e. guarantee that, given [input_1, input_2],input_2 never runs before input_1. On any given worker, either input_1 has ran before input_2, or input_1 has never and will never run on this worker. This only applies when using `loadscope`.
	With ``--no-loadscope-reorder``, retain input ordering in loadscope for tests where relative ordering matters. i.e. guarantee that, given [input_1, input_2],input_2 never runs before input_1. On any given worker, either input_1 has ran before input_2, or input_1 has never and will never run on this worker. This only applies when using ``loadscope``.

[Toad2186]

If this ever get traction from upstream, I'll fix it ;).

[darwintree]

Seems this branch is out-of-date with the base branch. Really looking for to have this merged in main branch

[Toad2186]

Seems this branch is out-of-date with the base branch.

Same response as above. I can fix it if it gets traction. Otherwise there's no point because it'll just become stale again.

[albertino87]

what is needed for this to be merged?