* bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?)
@ 2009-03-24 19:13 Daniel Hochheimer
2009-03-26 15:43 ` Carsten Dominik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Hochheimer @ 2009-03-24 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: emacs-orgmode
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) 2009-03-24 19:13 bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) Daniel Hochheimer @ 2009-03-26 15:43 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-03-27 0:24 ` Daniel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-03-26 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Hochheimer; +Cc: emacs-orgmode 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. I don't expect to change this because it would make the mechanism a lot more complex and slower. However, the todo dependencies are simple hook functions, and an interested programmer could relatively easily extend them, I believe. - 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) 2009-03-26 15:43 ` Carsten Dominik @ 2009-03-27 0:24 ` Daniel 2009-03-27 14:05 ` Carsten Dominik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Daniel @ 2009-03-27 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) 2009-03-27 0:24 ` Daniel @ 2009-03-27 14:05 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-03-28 2:52 ` Daniel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-03-27 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel; +Cc: emacs-orgmode 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 >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) 2009-03-27 14:05 ` Carsten Dominik @ 2009-03-28 2:52 ` Daniel 2009-03-30 14:39 ` Carsten Dominik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Daniel @ 2009-03-28 2:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode 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 >>> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) 2009-03-28 2:52 ` Daniel @ 2009-03-30 14:39 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-04-01 20:02 ` Daniel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-03-30 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Hi Daniel, looks that your modification do the right thing - almost. It does not check if the parent itself is a TODO, and I think this would be necessary as well. Because it would allow to have do-able subtasks in the list without too much blocking. So "write hopping list" would not be blocked in this case: * organize party :PROPERTIES: :ORDERED: t :END: ** TODO send invitations *** TODO send invitation to Paul *** TODO send invitation to Nicole *** ect. ** 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 Would you agree? - Carsten On Mar 28, 2009, at 3:52 AM, Daniel wrote: > 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 >>>> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) 2009-03-30 14:39 ` Carsten Dominik @ 2009-04-01 20:02 ` Daniel 2009-04-03 16:58 ` Carsten Dominik 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Daniel @ 2009-04-01 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Hello Carsten, you're right. I've changed the code suitable (at least I hope I have ;). Do you think it's possible to replace the original hook with my altered one, or do you think the additional checks are to expensive? As far as I see there's no noticeable difference. Nevertheless, here's the code in case someone is interested: (altered lines are marked with semicolons) (defun org-block-todo-from-children-or-siblings (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 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; (setq while_cond t);;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; (save-excursion (save-match-data ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; (ignore-errors (while while_cond;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; (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) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; (when (not (org-entry-is-todo-p)) (setq while_cond nil)))))) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; t)) Best regards, Daniel Carsten Dominik wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > looks that your modification do the right thing - almost. > It does not check if the parent itself is a TODO, and I > think this would be necessary as well. Because it would > allow to have do-able subtasks in the list without > too much blocking. > > So "write hopping list" would not be blocked in this case: > > * organize party > :PROPERTIES: > :ORDERED: t > :END: > ** TODO send invitations > *** TODO send invitation to Paul > *** TODO send invitation to Nicole > *** ect. > ** 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 > > Would you agree? > > - Carsten > > On Mar 28, 2009, at 3:52 AM, Daniel wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) 2009-04-01 20:02 ` Daniel @ 2009-04-03 16:58 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-04-07 19:59 ` Daniel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-04-03 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel; +Cc: emacs-orgmode [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12891 bytes --] Hi Daniel, thanks for your continuing efforts. I have now implemented this change, with some speed optimizations. I was worried that this could get slow, and the main occasion would be if you have an entry in a very long chain of siblings that have to be done ordered. I believe that I have made this a lot faster now. Thanks! - Carsten On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Daniel wrote: > Hello Carsten, > > you're right. I've changed the code suitable (at least I hope I > have ;). > > Do you think it's possible to replace the original hook with my > altered one, or do you think the additional checks are to expensive? > As far as I see there's no noticeable difference. > > Nevertheless, here's the code in case someone is interested: > (altered lines are marked with semicolons) > > > (defun org-block-todo-from-children-or-siblings (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 > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > (setq while_cond t);;; > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > (save-excursion (save-match-data > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > (ignore-errors (while while_cond;;; > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > (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) > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > (when (not (org-entry-is-todo-p)) > (setq while_cond nil)))))) > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; > t)) > > > Best regards, > Daniel > > > Carsten Dominik wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> looks that your modification do the right thing - almost. >> It does not check if the parent itself is a TODO, and I >> think this would be necessary as well. Because it would >> allow to have do-able subtasks in the list without >> too much blocking. >> >> So "write hopping list" would not be blocked in this case: >> >> * organize party >> :PROPERTIES: >> :ORDERED: t >> :END: >> ** TODO send invitations >> *** TODO send invitation to Paul >> *** TODO send invitation to Nicole >> *** ect. >> ** 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 >> >> Would you agree? >> >> - Carsten >> >> On Mar 28, 2009, at 3:52 AM, Daniel wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 50619 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --] _______________________________________________ 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) 2009-04-03 16:58 ` Carsten Dominik @ 2009-04-07 19:59 ` Daniel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Daniel @ 2009-04-07 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode Hello Carsten, thanks a million for optimizing and including this blocking-behavior into org-mode! :) It seems to work like a charm. Best regards, Daniel Carsten Dominik wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > thanks for your continuing efforts. I have now implemented > this change, with some speed optimizations. > > I was worried that this could get slow, and the main occasion > would be if you have an entry in a very long chain of > siblings that have to be done ordered. I believe that I > have made this a lot faster now. > > Thanks! > > - Carsten > > On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Daniel wrote: > >> Hello Carsten, >> >> you're right. I've changed the code suitable (at least I hope I have ;). >> >> Do you think it's possible to replace the original hook with my >> altered one, or do you think the additional checks are to expensive? >> As far as I see there's no noticeable difference. >> >> Nevertheless, here's the code in case someone is interested: >> (altered lines are marked with semicolons) >> >> >> (defun org-block-todo-from-children-or-siblings (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 >> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; >> (setq while_cond t);;; >> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; >> (save-excursion (save-match-data >> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; >> (ignore-errors (while while_cond;;; >> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; >> (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) >> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; >> (when (not (org-entry-is-todo-p)) >> (setq while_cond nil)))))) >> ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; >> t)) >> >> >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> >> >> Carsten Dominik wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> looks that your modification do the right thing - almost. >>> It does not check if the parent itself is a TODO, and I >>> think this would be necessary as well. Because it would >>> allow to have do-able subtasks in the list without >>> too much blocking. >>> >>> So "write hopping list" would not be blocked in this case: >>> >>> * organize party >>> :PROPERTIES: >>> :ORDERED: t >>> :END: >>> ** TODO send invitations >>> *** TODO send invitation to Paul >>> *** TODO send invitation to Nicole >>> *** ect. >>> ** 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 >>> >>> Would you agree? >>> >>> - Carsten >>> >>> On Mar 28, 2009, at 3:52 AM, Daniel wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <mailto:Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org> >>>>>>>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-04-07 19:59 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-03-24 19:13 bug in "simple dependencies" handling (?) Daniel Hochheimer 2009-03-26 15:43 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-03-27 0:24 ` Daniel 2009-03-27 14:05 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-03-28 2:52 ` Daniel 2009-03-30 14:39 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-04-01 20:02 ` Daniel 2009-04-03 16:58 ` Carsten Dominik 2009-04-07 19:59 ` Daniel
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git 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).