Feature: experiment.EnsureControlRunsFirst()

[JoshHiles]

resolves #159

A new method experiment.EnsureControlRunsFirst() which if enabled will randomise the candidates first then add the control to start.

[JoshHiles]

Not sure why its got all the commits since b2ef4a3 i suspect its something to do squashing commits, the joys, will sort after this PR so i don't mess up more 😅

[M-Zuber]

The implementation is clean, and could go in as is

I am wondering though if this actually solves the issue raised. Since sometimes I can want the experiments to run, and only then run the control. For example, if each experimental behaviour does clean up and just reports on results, then I want the control to run last, without doing any cleanup.
Which then leads us to the bikeshedding of allowing the user to optionally pass in an ordering with each behaviour, or a set number of use cases controlled by settings.

[JoshHiles]

Legend, very nice catch, i have been very narrow focused on just the issued raised!
Damn yeh a few options then i guess

Pass order to Try & Catch

experiment.Use(ControlMethod, order: 0);
experiment.Try(CandidateMethod, order: 1);

Pros

• Full flexibility

Cons

• I think its a bit of UX nightmare
• Have to deal with order clashes
• If you set the order on one what about the order of the rest? Lots of edge cases

Enum defined order method

experiment.WithExecutionOrder(OrderExecution.ControlFirst)

Pros

• Clearly defined API
• Easy to add new orders

Cons

• Less flexible

User defined ordering

experiment.UseCustomOrder(behaviours  => CustomMethod(behaviours))

Pros

• Most flexible in that user gets complete control
• We can expose some methods to use
• We don't have to catch edge cases and custom logic

Cons

• ?

Each way has its own trade offs and advantages, i hesitate to implement them all but perhaps that might be the way?

[M-Zuber]

User defined ordering sounds like it is the best option
as it allows the user full control
we can potentially consider supporting a set number of known algorithms as a bonus (like Ordering.ControlFirst, Ordering.ControlLast)

[JoshHiles]

See #167 and if we are happy we can close this PR?

[M-Zuber]

#167 has a rename that snuck in, but otherwise I vote in favor of closing this in favor of #167

[JoshHiles]

Closing in favour of #167