Alphabetize the lockfile

[mariusvniekerk]

This should be able to implement lockfile sorting as described in #491 .

We probably want to restrict this to v2 lockfiles only as these lockfiles will behave incorrectly when used with older versions of conda-lock

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for conda-lock ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	bb6c7d1
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/conda-lock/deploys/655b3e1e22cf9f000884c5ec
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-524--conda-lock.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[maresb]

We probably want to restrict this to v2 lockfiles only as these lockfiles will behave incorrectly when used with older versions of conda-lock

I looked into this, and my understanding is that doing this for Lockfile V1 would break conda-lock install for v1.0.0 through v1.0.4, but that v1.0.5 is would work thanks to #184.

One might argue that v1.0.5 is a bugfix patch, and that v1 lockfiles are not dependent on ordering. So then the question is if anyone out there has a workflow where conda-lock install is pinned between 1.0.0 and 1.0.4 while conda-lock lock is unpinned?

[maresb]

I want to merge and release this if the resulting lockfiles work with conda-lock >=1.0.5 and micromamba >=1.0.0. Just needs testing.

[FelixSchwarz]

@maresb Could you mention what helpful test would look like? Just create a conda lock file with the code from this PR and check that micromamba creates the expected environment? I think I have micromamba 1.5.0 for example.

[maresb]

I'd be very happy to be convinced otherwise, but I don't see a good way to write an automated test for this.

By testing, I mean to just try it out and make sure things are being installed in the correct order.

[mariusvniekerk]

Technically we can just use sorted lockfile and emit the legacy file and check line order in there?

[maresb]

After quite a bit of experimentation I'm fairly convinced this is safe. I had to use v1.1.0 as a lower version due to #194, but that doesn't have anything to do with the alphabetization.

Once we get a test I think we're good to go.

Probably we just verify topological ordering by iterating through the explicit lockfile. With the original LockFile object in hand, we keep track of all the previously "installed" names, and before any insertion we verify that all the dependencies referenced from the LockFile are previously "installed".