Add adc_group/adc_sample_order contact annotation

[alejoe91]

Fixes #367

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 90.13%. Comparing base (92c8d05) to head (0855236).
⚠️ Report is 17 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #368      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.11%   90.13%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines        2083     2088       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         1877     1882       +5     
  Misses        206      206              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[h-mayorquin]

#367

I find mux_index and mux_channels confusing and somewhat clashing with other concepts, as "index" and "channel" are already overloaded terms in our ecosystem. Could we take this opportunity to improve the naming?

• For the index of the ADC to which the contact belongs, I propose adc_group or adc_index
• For the order in which the contact is sampled within the ADC, I propose adc_sample_position or adc_sample_order.

[chrishalcrow]

Suggested change

if chans_saved is not None:

(this doesn't matter, but it's existence made me stare at the indentation for ages to check it was right...)

[alejoe91]

not sure I understand!

[alejoe91]

Oh I think I understand. We need this in both cases (if probe is none or not)

[chrishalcrow]

I just meant that there was a repeated if chans_saved is not None, but you're right that it should have been moved down an indentation. Nice catch!

[chrishalcrow]

This comment should move to the chans_saved code too