emacs-orgmode@gnu.org archives
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Adam Spiers <orgmode@adamspiers.org>
To: org-mode mailing list <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 15:05:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201222150516.kqounuguau3odhr7@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201202142053.zexzdpmyv4ear3zc@gmail.com>

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. 


>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 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-22 15:05 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 [this message]
2020-12-22 23:38   ` Samuel Wales
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=20201222150516.kqounuguau3odhr7@gmail.com \
    --to=orgmode@adamspiers.org \
    --cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.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).