emacs-orgmode@gnu.org archives
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Samuel Wales <samologist@gmail.com>
To: Adam Spiers <orgmode@adamspiers.org>
Cc: org-mode mailing list <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 16:38:19 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJcAo8vo8qc8qbkhsBnGyTNwcDL3niGiuZQRdcBmNJg08mojKg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201222150516.kqounuguau3odhr7@gmail.com>

if my opinion is worth anything [perhaps not much here :]], i like
your proposals and the idea of being able to re-sort an existing
agenda assuming that is your goal.

i don't use any priority sorting except in user-customizable but it
makes sense to decouple them for those who do.  and i frequently want
to differently sort an existing agenda view.

On 12/22/20, Adam Spiers <orgmode@adamspiers.org> wrote:
> Hi again,
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 02:20:53PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>I'm currently working on adding a feature to org-agenda which allows
>>manual ordering of entries in combination with the existing automatic
>>ordering (as dictated by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy').
>>During my investigations I noticed that while `org-get-priority' converts
>>[#B] style cookies into a numeric priority which is a multiple of
>>1000, further adjustments are made in functions like
>>`org-agenda-get-scheduled' before adding this numeric priority as a
>>text property on the entry:
>>    'priority (if habitp (org-habit-get-priority habitp)
>>                (+ 99 diff (org-get-priority item)))
>>In this case `diff' refers to the number of days between now and when
>>the item was scheduled.  A slightly different calculation is made in
>>    (org-add-props item props
>>      'priority (if habit?
>>                    (org-habit-get-priority (org-habit-parse-todo))
>>                  (org-get-priority item))
>>I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by
>>including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour
>>I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'.
>>For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the
>>`agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences
>>in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation
>>and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by
>>category.  This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the
>>Principle of Least Surprise.
> [snipped]
>>Given that `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' now supports all manner of
>>sorting criteria, many of which are time-sensitive, I would like to
>>know if there is any reason not to remove this overloading of the
>>priority calculation, i.e. decoupling it to depend purely on the
>>result of `org-get-priority' and `org-habit-get-priority'?
>>If fact, perhaps we could go one step further and add support for new
>>habit-priority-{up,down} sorters to `org-agenda-sorting-strategy', so
>>that the priority-{up,down} sorters sort purely by the priority cookie
>>and nothing else?
> Gently bumping this as I didn't get any replies yet.  I would like to
> continue working on a solution, but obviously don't want to waste time
> on something which would be rejected.
> If it is considered important to preserve the exact behaviour
> currently offered by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' then I would
> propose the following:
> - Keep the existing priority-{up,down} which combine priority cookies
>    with timestamp data and the result from `org-habit-get-priority',
>    but probably also deprecate it and remove it from the default value.
> - Introduce new priority-cookie-{up,down} sorters which operate purely
>    on [#A] and [#1] style priority cookies and nothing else.
> This would facilitate decoupling of the sortable criteria whilst
> remaining backwards compatible.
> Does this sound reasonable?  I am keen to proceed very soon (ideally
> over the Xmas break).  I have already written some new ert tests for
> `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' which would be included in any submitted
> patches.
> Thanks!
> Adam

The Kafka Pandemic

Please learn what misopathy is.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-22 23:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-02 14:20 overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda Adam Spiers
2020-12-22 15:05 ` Adam Spiers
2020-12-22 23:38   ` Samuel Wales [this message]
2020-12-23  0:13     ` Adam Spiers
2021-03-09  7:07 ` Jack Kamm
2021-03-09 11:09   ` Adam Spiers

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information: https://www.orgmode.org/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAJcAo8vo8qc8qbkhsBnGyTNwcDL3niGiuZQRdcBmNJg08mojKg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=samologist@gmail.com \
    --cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
    --cc=orgmode@adamspiers.org \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox


This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).