Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?)

[Daniel <dh@obyz.de>]

Oh my god! I think I've found a good solution :)

Can you please tell me, whether it's crap or not?

Only 4 lines differ from the original
org-block-todo-from-children-or-siblings hook. I've marked
the lines with "comment lines", they are before and after
the ORDERED-property check, at the end of the function.


(defun org-block-todo-from-children-or-siblings-or-parent (change-plist)
  "Block turning an entry into a TODO, using the hierarchy.
This checks whether the current task should be blocked from state
changes.  Such blocking occurs when:

  1. The task has children which are not all in a completed state.

  2. A task has a parent with the property :ORDERED:, and there
     are siblings prior to the current task with incomplete
     status."
  (catch 'dont-block
    ;; If this is not a todo state change, or if this entry is already DONE,
    ;; do not block
    (when (or (not (eq (plist-get change-plist :type) 'todo-state-change))
          (member (plist-get change-plist :from)
              (cons 'done org-done-keywords))
          (member (plist-get change-plist :to)
              (cons 'todo org-not-done-keywords)))
      (throw 'dont-block t))
    ;; If this task has children, and any are undone, it's blocked
    (save-excursion
      (org-back-to-heading t)
      (let ((this-level (funcall outline-level)))
    (outline-next-heading)
    (let ((child-level (funcall outline-level)))
      (while (and (not (eobp))
              (> child-level this-level))
        ;; this todo has children, check whether they are all
        ;; completed
        (if (and (not (org-entry-is-done-p))
             (org-entry-is-todo-p))
        (throw 'dont-block nil))
        (outline-next-heading)
        (setq child-level (funcall outline-level))))))
    ;; Otherwise, if the task's parent has the :ORDERED: property, and
    ;; any previous siblings are undone, it's blocked
  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
  (save-excursion (save-match-data
    (ignore-errors (while t
  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    (save-excursion
      (org-back-to-heading t)
      (when (save-excursion
          (ignore-errors
        (org-up-heading-all 1)
        (org-entry-get (point) "ORDERED")))
    (let* ((this-level (funcall outline-level))
           (current-level this-level))
      (while (and (not (bobp))
              (>= current-level this-level))
        (outline-previous-heading)
        (setq current-level (funcall outline-level))
        (if (= current-level this-level)
        ;; This is a younger sibling, check if it is completed
        (if (and (not (org-entry-is-done-p))
             (org-entry-is-todo-p))
            (throw 'dont-block nil)))))))
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    (org-back-to-heading t)
    (org-up-heading-all 1)))))
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    t))

(add-hook 'org-blocker-hook 
'org-block-todo-from-children-or-siblings-or-parent)



Carsten Dominik wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> one problem might have been a bug I just fixed.
>
> Another problem is that the way you wrote your code, a child
> on an ordered sequence will block the parent, and the parent
> will block the child.
>
> I'd like to come around an fix this, just not clear yet how, and
> how to do it efficiently.
>
> - Carsten
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Daniel wrote:
>
>> Hello Carsten,
>>
>> thanks for your reply.
>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> yes, this could be seen as a bug.  However, the implementation
>>> does not work by scanning the entire buffer and marking tasks
>>> that should be blocked.  Rather, it goes to each task and then
>>> scans around to see locally what the dependencies are.
>>>
>>> In this case it looks only at the parent, not at the
>>> grand parent.
>> Wouldn't it be enough to check whether the parent is blocked.
>> Wouldn't that generate a blocking-chain?
>>
>>
>>> However, the todo
>>> dependencies are simple hook functions, and an interested
>>> programmer could relatively easily extend them, I believe.
>> I've tried to write a custom org-blocker-hook but it doesn't work,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> Can you (or someone else) tell me please what's wrong with my code?
>>
>> (defun org-block-todo-with-blocked-parent (change-plist)
>> ;; check whether we are in a endless loop:
>> (if (plist-get change-plist :org-block-todo-with-blocked-parent)
>>   ;; We are in a endless loop: don't block (return t)
>>   t
>>   ;; We are not in a endless loop: go to the parent heading
>>   (save-excursion
>>     (org-back-to-heading t)
>>     (ignore-errors (org-up-heading-all 1))
>>     ;; generate a fake change-plist with a flag to indicate a endless 
>> loop
>>     (setq fake-change-plist
>>       (list
>>         :type 'todo-state-change
>>         :from "DONE"
>>         :to "TODO"
>>         :position 0
>>         :org-block-todo-with-blocked-parent t))
>>     ;; check whether the parent heading should be blocked and return 
>> the result
>>     (save-match-data
>>       (run-hook-with-args-until-failure 'org-blocker-hook 
>> fake-change-plist)))))
>>
>> (add-hook 'org-blocker-hook 'org-block-todo-with-blocked-parent)
>>
>>
>>> I don't expect to change this because it would make the
>>> mechanism a lot more complex and slower.
>> I think it's essential to provide this eventuality. For example
>> this tree:
>>
>> * organize party
>> :PROPERTIES:
>> :ORDERED:  t
>> :END:
>> ** TODO send invitations
>> *** TODO send invitation to Paul
>> *** TODO send invitation to Nicole
>> *** ect.
>> ** TODO buy meals and drinks
>> :PROPERTIES:
>> :ORDERED:  t
>> :END:
>> *** TODO write shopping list
>> *** TODO get money  from my bank account
>> *** TODO buy food
>> *** TODO buy drinks
>>
>> with this tree, only "send invitation to Paul" and "send invitation 
>> to Nicole"
>> should be on my agenda. But "write shopping list" is also an my agenda
>> list (although it shouldn't: I can't write a shopping list if I don't 
>> know how
>> many people will come to my party).
>>
>>
>> best regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>>> - Carsten
>>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2009, at 8:13 PM, Daniel Hochheimer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> first of all, please excuse my poorly english.
>>>>
>>>> It seems there is a bug in the handling of simple dependencies.
>>>> I think an example tree is the best solution, to show you the bug:
>>>>
>>>> * Projects
>>>> #+CATEGORY: Projects
>>>> *** TODO foo bar project
>>>>  :PROPERTIES:
>>>>  :ORDERED:  t
>>>>  :END:
>>>> ***** TODO foo subproject        :FooSubproject:
>>>> ******* TODO Task 1
>>>> ***** TODO bar subproject        :BarSubproject:
>>>> ******* TODO Task 1
>>>>
>>>> This is in my .emacs file:
>>>> (setq org-enforce-todo-dependencies t)
>>>> (setq org-agenda-dim-blocked-tasks 'invisible)
>>>> (setq org-odd-levels-only t)
>>>>
>>>> the expected global todo agenda view imho is:
>>>>
>>>> Projects:    Task 1       :FooSubproject:
>>>>
>>>> but actual it is unfortunately:
>>>>
>>>> Projects:    Task 1       :FooSubproject:
>>>> Projects:    Task 1       :BarSubproject:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Imho "Task 1" from "bar subproject" should not be visible,
>>>> because "bar subproject " is blocked because of the
>>>> ORDERED property (therefore it's childs should be blocked, too)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it easy / possible to fix this bug? My whole GTD system is
>>>> heavily based on such project / subproject-Constructs. But with
>>>> this bug my global todo agenda view is unfortunately "polluted"
>>>> a little bit with tasks from projects that shouldn't be active.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> PS: many thanks to the developer of this great emacs mode, I really
>>>> enjoy org-mode. I started using emacs only because of the great
>>>> abilities of org-mode.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
>>>> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
>>>> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>>>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>>>
>