Include all annotated fields in order

[dmontagu]

Change Summary

Modifies field ordering so that all annotated fields occur in the order included.

Note: non-annotated fields still come last; this is probably unavoidable.

This is a subtly breaking change, so, if desired, should probably be part of 1.0.

Related issue number

Related to #674 #483 #203 #716

Checklist

• Unit tests for the changes exist
• Tests pass on CI and coverage remains at 100%
• Documentation reflects the changes where applicable
• HISTORY.rst has been updated
  • if this is the first change since a release, please add a new section
  • include the issue number or this pull request number #<number>
  • include your github username @<whomever>

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #715 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##           master   #715   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage     100%   100%           
=====================================
  Files          15     15           
  Lines        2710   2807   +97     
  Branches      532    578   +46     
=====================================
+ Hits         2710   2807   +97

[samuelcolvin]

please can you rebase and move the history change to changes/ as per #719.

[samuelcolvin]

as per #716 I guess we should implement Config.require_annotations = True

[samuelcolvin]

otherwise looks good, plus Config.require_annotations = True

[samuelcolvin]

Suggested change

	new_fields_ordering = [k for k in annotations if k in new_fields] + [
	ordered_new_fields = [k for k in annotations if k in new_fields] + [

[samuelcolvin]

Suggested change

	for k in new_fields_ordering:
	fields.update(ordered_new_fields)

I think.

[dmontagu]

new_fields_ordering only includes the keys, not the values; your modification above didn't change that, as far as I can tell. So ordered_new_fields is a List[str], not a Dict[str, Field].

I'm happy to rename, but I couldn't come up with a way to get ordered_new_fields to be a dict without making things ugly elsewhere. Let me know if you want me to try harder.

[samuelcolvin]

Humm, that's true sorry.

Rather than describe it all, i'll commit to your PR and you can change or remove it if it doesn't make sense.

[samuelcolvin]

take a look at d3b10e5, I think that's better than building the order wrong then rebuilding it right, but happy to change if I'm missing something.

[samuelcolvin]

@dmontagu kind of unrelated, but nowhere better to discuss:

Could I have your email address? If you're not happy sharing it publicly, feel free to email s@muelcolvin.com.

[dmontagu]

@dmontagu kind of unrelated, but nowhere better to discuss:

Could I have your email address? If you're not happy sharing it publicly, feel free to email s@muelcolvin.com.

Sent you an email, let me know if you didn't get it.

[samuelcolvin]

@dmontagu are you happy with this? If so I guess it can be merged.

[dmontagu]

@samuelcolvin I'm good with it, feel free to merge once the checks re-pass.