Use regular dicts instead of OrderedDicts for speedier operations

[adswa]

This is an attempt to fix #6566, which calls for a replacement of OrderedDicts with regular dicts to increase performance/speed. There was only one instance in status() where OrderedDict-specific functionality was used; I used a patch cooked up by @yarikoptic in #6566 as an alternative.
Let's check if the CI is happy with this change or if it breaks something.

[adswa]

There is an Appveyor failure that I feel I had seen fail before already, but I can't find it in recently opened PRs:

================================== FAILURES ===================================
____________________________ test_gracefull_death _____________________________
[gw0] win32 -- Python 3.9.13 C:\Python39-x64\python.exe
    def test_gracefull_death():
    
        def assert_provides_and_raises(pc, exception, target=None):
            """Helper to get all results before exception is raised"""
            results = []
            with assert_raises(exception):
                for r in pc:
                    results.append(r)
            # results should be sorted since we do not guarantee order
            results = sorted(results)
            if target is not None:
                assert_equal(results, target)
            return results
    
        def interrupted_producer():
            yield 1
            raise ValueError()
    
        def consumer(i):
            sleep(0.001)
            yield i
    
        assert_provides_and_raises(
            ProducerConsumer(interrupted_producer(), consumer, jobs=3), ValueError, [1])
    
        def faulty_consumer(i):
            sleep(0.001)
            if i == 1:
                raise ValueError()
            return i
    
        # so we do not get failed, but other parallel ones finish their job
        results = assert_provides_and_raises(
            ProducerConsumer(range(1000), faulty_consumer, jobs=5), ValueError)
        # and analysis of futures to raise an exception can take some time etc, so
        # we could get more, but for sure we should not get all 999 and not even a 100
        if info_log_level:
            assert_greater(100, len(results))
        assert_equal(results[:4], [0, 2, 3, 4])
    
        def producer():
            for i in range(10):
                sleep(0.0003)
                yield i
            raise ValueError()
        # by default we do not stop upon producer failing
        assert_provides_and_raises(
            ProducerConsumer(producer(), consumer, jobs=2), ValueError, list(range(10)))
        # if producer produces more than we can as quickly consume but then fails
        # ATM we do not proceed to consume other items, but fail when we finish
        # consuming until the time point when producer has failed
        # by default we do not stop upon producer failing
        results = assert_provides_and_raises(
            ProducerConsumer(producer(), consumer, reraise_immediately=True, jobs=2),
            ValueError)
        # we will get some results, seems around 4 and they should be "sequential"
        assert_equal(results, list(range(len(results))))
        try:
            assert_greater_equal(len(results), 2)
        except AssertionError:
            # Possible TODO: if tests below would start failing too, move xfail to the level
            # of the entire test
            pytest.xfail(f"Rarely but happens. Got only {len(results)} instead of at least 2")
    
        # This test relies too much on threads scheduling to not hog up on handling
        # consumers, but if it happens so - they might actually consume all results
        # before producer decides to finally raise an exception.  As such it remains
        # flaky and thus not ran, but could be useful to test locally while
        # changing that logic.
        #
        # if info_log_level and not (on_windows or on_osx):
        #     # consumers should not be able to consume all produced items.
        #     # production of 10 should take 3 unites, while consumers 10/2 (jobs)
        #     # 5 units, so some should not have a chance.
        #     assert_greater_equal(8, len(results))
    
        # Simulate situation close to what we have when outside code consumes
        # some yielded results and then "looses interest" (on_failure="error").
        # In this case we should still exit gracefully (no GeneratorExit warnings),
        # not over-produce, and also do not kill already running consumers
        consumed = []
        def inner():
            def consumer(i):
                sleep(0.01)
                consumed.append(i)
                return i
            pc = iter(ProducerConsumer(range(1000), consumer, jobs=2))
            yield next(pc)
            yield next(pc)
        # typically it should be [0, 1] but it does happen some times that
        # one other worker gets ahead and we get [0, 2]. As it is not per se the
        # purpose of this test to ensure absence of such race, we just allow for any
        # two from first 3 possible.
        assert len(set(inner()).intersection({0, 1, 2})) == 2
        consumed = sorted(consumed)
        assert_equal(consumed, list(range(len(consumed))))
>       assert_greater_equal(len(consumed), 4)  # we should wait for that 2nd batch to finish
..\datalad\support\tests\test_parallel.py:236: 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
first = 3, second = 4, msg = None
    def assert_greater_equal(first, second, msg=None):
        if msg is None:
>           assert first >= second
E           assert 3 >= 4
..\datalad\tests\utils_pytest.py:125: AssertionError

I've restarted the failed run to see if it persists.

Edit: It passed in a rerun

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 88.56% // Head: 90.78% // Increases project coverage by +2.22% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (87995e1) compared to base (5cdda33).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #7174      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.56%   90.78%   +2.22%     
==========================================
  Files         325      325              
  Lines       44144    44130      -14     
  Branches     5863     5863              
==========================================
+ Hits        39095    40064     +969     
+ Misses       5034     4051     -983     
  Partials       15       15              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
datalad/core/distributed/push.py	91.18% <100.00%> (-0.04%)	⬇️
datalad/core/local/diff.py	90.29% <100.00%> (-0.10%)	⬇️
datalad/core/local/status.py	94.19% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
datalad/customremotes/archives.py	90.25% <100.00%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
datalad/downloaders/credentials.py	84.11% <100.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
datalad/downloaders/providers.py	95.31% <100.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
datalad/interface/base.py	95.33% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
datalad/local/wtf.py	77.59% <100.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
datalad/support/annexrepo.py	90.41% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
datalad/support/gitrepo.py	92.70% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
... and 13 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[yarikoptic]

looks good, thank you!

[codeclimate]

Code Climate has analyzed commit 87995e1 and detected 3 issues on this pull request.

Here's the issue category breakdown:

Category	Count
Security	3

View more on Code Climate.

[yarikoptic-gitmate]

PR released in 0.18.0