Fix: Order-insensitive unit test equality assertion for expected/actual with multiple nulls

[MichelleArk]

resolves #10167

Problem

TableDiff.hasDifference unexpectedly returns True when comparing two input tables that have multiple identical rows with containing None, even if CompareFlags.orderis set toFalse`.

Solution

• Confirmed underlying daff bug and opened an issue in there: [Python] [Bug] TableDiff.hasDifference is sensitive to order when inputs contain multiple identical rows containing None, even if CompareFlags.order is False paulfitz/daff#200
• Pre-sorted fixture row inputs prior to feeding them into daff for diffing
• Still kept around the flags.ordered as a backstop + in the hope that we can remove the custom sorting if daff has a fix

Checklist

• I have read the contributing guide and understand what's expected of me
• I have run this code in development and it appears to resolve the stated issue
• This PR includes tests, or tests are not required/relevant for this PR
• This PR has no interface changes (e.g. macros, cli, logs, json artifacts, config files, adapter interface, etc) or this PR has already received feedback and approval from Product or DX
• This PR includes type annotations for new and modified functions

[github-actions]

Thank you for your pull request! We could not find a changelog entry for this change. For details on how to document a change, see the contributing guide.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.68%. Comparing base (09243d1) to head (6058fa3).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #10202      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.63%   88.68%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         180      180              
  Lines       22434    22449      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits        19885    19910      +25     
+ Misses       2549     2539      -10     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	85.96% <100.00%> (-0.12%)	⬇️
unit	63.37% <60.00%> (+0.37%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[MichelleArk]

Moved flags initialization higher up as they should also be used to create alignment. This doesn't fix the issue, but it makes sense to use the same flags for alignment and diff, assuming flags.order worked perfectly :)