feat: implement reversed-filter-group-priority option

[Pavel-Sulimau]

Description

This PR adds a new filtering option that implements the problem/desired behavior described in this issue.

The implementation is backward compatible, so the default filtering behavior should stay as it is.

Ideally, I'd love to have the possibility to prioritize filters based on the order of their input, but it seems to me that would require way more changes, so this is the simpler trade-off solution I have come up with so far.

---

The alternative approach I ended up implementing in the CI workflow of our big project implies setting the global MELOS_PACKAGES scope filter with the values from melos list --diff=origin/main...HEAD --include-dependents. The approach is described in https://itnext.io/flutter-selective-ci-checks-2d79ffbd26e5 article. Hopefully, it is helpful for other looking for optimization in their CI pipelines!

Type of Change

• ✨ feat -- New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• 🛠️ fix -- Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• ❌ ! -- Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• 🧹 refactor -- Code refactor
• ✅ ci -- Build configuration change
• 📝 docs -- Documentation
• 🗑️ chore -- Chore

[Pavel-Sulimau]

Hey @Salakar, @spydon, your feedback on the proposed changes would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

[spydon]

Hey @Salakar, @spydon, your feedback on the proposed changes would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

I'm still in the US, but I should have time to look at this on the weekend again! I'm still a bit unsure of the reverse concept and priority groups.

[spydon]

I had a look again and I agree with what it is trying to do, but as I've said before I don't like the complexity of introducing the priority groups. I haven't come up with any other ideas though, do you have any other ideas how this could be handled?

[Pavel-Sulimau]

@spydon, the most obvious and prominent idea in my opinion is to implement filters' prioritization based on the order of their input, however, I foresee this feature will require quite some changes.

Alternatively, we could just create a flag (how would we call it?) specifically handling this case to prioritize applyDiff and applyIncludeDependentsOrDependencies, but it looks like a less generic solution.

So, I agree that the priority groups is not the greatest way to solve the case, but I don't see many other ways at the moment how to do that elegantly without much effort/potential to break what is already working.

[spydon]

@spydon, the most obvious and prominent idea in my opinion is to implement filters' prioritization based on the order of their input, however, I foresee this feature will require quite some changes.

That sounds like a great idea! If some filters aren't coming in through flags, but through config, we have to have a way to decide the order between the flags and those ones too right?

[Pavel-Sulimau]

If some filters aren't coming in through flags, but through config, we have to have a way to decide the order between the flags and those ones too right?

I believe it should be possible.

[spydon]

If some filters aren't coming in through flags, but through config, we have to have a way to decide the order between the flags and those ones too right?

I believe it should be possible.

Do you want to dig deeper into that option? I think it would be a better solution to the problem.

[Pavel-Sulimau]

I would love to, however as I noted in the PR description it will likely require way more work for which I do not have enough time in the upcoming month or 2, so I'll leave it like this in case someone has time and desire to implement the other approach, otherwise I can get back to it myself sometime later.