Codecov Report

Merging #516 (1b5b515) into master (bce7d60) will decrease coverage by 0.30%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##            master     #516      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   99.70%   -0.30%     
===========================================
  Files           59       57       -2     
  Lines        19874    19728     -146     
===========================================
- Hits         19874    19669     -205     
- Misses           0       59      +59     

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

I now recall that the old behavior, keeping labels in their first-observed order but making them hierarchable (in the old sense) was a feature. I am not sure that global sorting is what we always want to do. Lets consider that before merging this change.

Also: does this approach require labels per depth to be sortable? If the previous approach did not require labels to be sortable, we might prefer it.

@flexatone I can't remember what we were doing with this PR. Did we come to any conclusions, namely, either merge, merge with changes, or abandon entirely?

@chaburkland : As discussed above, I think retaining ordering in rehierarching is important. Does this retain order, or do a full lex sort on all depths?