[PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Ilya Shlyakhter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

When specifying times in the tags/properties matcher you can use 
relative time notation, such as <yesterday> or <-1w>.  This patch
allows this to be used in other places, such as the :tstart and :tend
parameters of clocktable.

Btw, I couldn't quite understand the exact meaning of :block, :tstart 
and :tend as decribed in the manual.  Is there a better explanation
somewhere?

thanks,

ilya

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Time-specifications-Allow-specifying-relative-times.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2021 bytes --]

From d19778b3fc624e14237d69cc76a4aa9cb8450697 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:19:12 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

* org.el (org-parse-time-string): Allow strings supported by tags/properties
matcher (eg <now>, <yesterday>, <-7d>) if the time starts with < and ends
with >.  This means that e.g. in the clocktable parameters you can specify
:tstart "<-1w>" :tend "<now>".

TINYCHANGE
---
 lisp/org.el |   23 +++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lisp/org.el b/lisp/org.el
index 4d2ae87..995dffd 100644
--- a/lisp/org.el
+++ b/lisp/org.el
@@ -16016,16 +16016,19 @@ When SHOW-ALL is nil, only return the current occurrence of a time stamp."
 This should be a lot faster than the normal `parse-time-string'.
 If time is not given, defaults to 0:00.  However, with optional NODEFAULT,
 hour and minute fields will be nil if not given."
-  (if (string-match org-ts-regexp0 s)
-      (list 0
-	    (if (or (match-beginning 8) (not nodefault))
-		(string-to-number (or (match-string 8 s) "0")))
-	    (if (or (match-beginning 7) (not nodefault))
-		(string-to-number (or (match-string 7 s) "0")))
-	    (string-to-number (match-string 4 s))
-	    (string-to-number (match-string 3 s))
-	    (string-to-number (match-string 2 s))
-	    nil nil nil)
+  (cond
+   ((string-match "^<.+>$" s)
+    (decode-time (seconds-to-time (org-matcher-time s))))
+   ((string-match org-ts-regexp0 s)
+    (list 0
+	  (if (or (match-beginning 8) (not nodefault))
+	      (string-to-number (or (match-string 8 s) "0")))
+	  (if (or (match-beginning 7) (not nodefault))
+	      (string-to-number (or (match-string 7 s) "0")))
+	  (string-to-number (match-string 4 s))
+	  (string-to-number (match-string 3 s))
+	  (string-to-number (match-string 2 s))
+	  nil nil nil))
     (error "Not a standard Org-mode time string: %s" s)))
 
 (defun org-timestamp-up (&optional arg)
-- 
1.7.9.3

Re: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Sebastien Vauban]

Hi Ilya,

Ilya Shlyakhter wrote:
> Btw, I couldn't quite understand the exact meaning of :block, :tstart and
> :tend as decribed in the manual.  Is there a better explanation
> somewhere?

The block allows you to specify some chunk which is definable easily:
- yesterday
- lastweek
- thismonth
- 2012-02
- 2012-03-30
- etc.

  #+BEGIN: clocktable :scope ("file.org") :block 2012-02
  #+END:

`tstart' and `tend' serve for when you want to specify some range of dates
which is not expressable that way: for example, last Monday (`tstart') to
Wednesday (`tend').

Best regards,
  Seb

-- 
Sebastien Vauban

Re: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Bastien]

Hi Ilya,

Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> When specifying times in the tags/properties matcher you can use relative
> time notation, such as <yesterday> or <-1w>.  This patch
> allows this to be used in other places, such as the :tstart and :tend
> parameters of clocktable.

Applied, thanks!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Ivan Vilata i Balaguer]

Bastien (2012-04-20 13:13:12 +0200) wrote:

> Ilya Shlyakhter <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> When specifying times in the tags/properties matcher you can use
>> relative time notation, such as <yesterday> or <-1w>.  This patch
>> allows this to be used in other places, such as the :tstart and :tend
>> parameters of clocktable.
>
> Applied, thanks!

This is a very useful patch for allowing "sliding windows" of time,
e.g. to know "how much time have I clocked during the last four weeks?".

However, I'm looking at the Git master branch and I see that the patch
hasn't actually been applied [there][1] yet (and the [original
thread][2] is from March).  Is there any problem with it?  Am I looking
at the wrong repo?

[1]: http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/lisp/org.el#n16359
[2]: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/54101

Thanks a lot,

-- 
Ivan Vilata i Balaguer -- https://elvil.net/

Re: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Bastien]

Hi Ivan,

Ivan Vilata i Balaguer <ivan@selidor.net> writes:

> However, I'm looking at the Git master branch and I see that the patch
> hasn't actually been applied [there][1] yet (and the [original
> thread][2] is from March).  Is there any problem with it?  Am I looking
> at the wrong repo?
>
> [1]: http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/lisp/org.el#n16359
> [2]: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/54101

I'm not sure what went wrong on your side but the patch
has been applied here:

http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/commit/?id=001bcb9645bf0a5ea72f09ae502a8410319473c0

HTH,

-- 
 Bastien

Re: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Ivan Vilata i Balaguer]

Bastien (2012-11-13 23:02:40 +0100) wrote:

> Ivan Vilata i Balaguer <ivan@selidor.net> writes:
>
>> However, I'm looking at the Git master branch and I see that the
>> patch hasn't actually been applied [there][1] yet (and the [original
>> thread][2] is from March).  Is there any problem with it?  Am I
>> looking at the wrong repo?
>>
>> [1]: http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tree/lisp/org.el#n16359
>> [2]: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/54101
>
> I'm not sure what went wrong on your side but the patch
> has been applied here:
>
> http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/commit/?id=001bcb9645bf0a5ea72f09ae502a8410319473c0

Sure I can see the patch, but then how come the version of
``org-parse-time-string`` in the head of both the master and maint
branches is still the one from before the patch was applied?  It's quite
strange...

I apologise if I'm getting confused with git or the way the Org repo is
structured, but maybe the change was accidentally reverted later.

In any case, thanks for your answer!

-- 
Ivan Vilata i Balaguer -- https://elvil.net/

Re: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Achim Gratz]

Ivan Vilata i Balaguer writes:
> Bastien (2012-11-13 23:02:40 +0100) wrote:
>> I'm not sure what went wrong on your side but the patch
>> has been applied here:
>>
>> http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/commit/?id=001bcb9645bf0a5ea72f09ae502a8410319473c0
>
> I apologise if I'm getting confused with git or the way the Org repo is
> structured, but maybe the change was accidentally reverted later.


It was reverted with 6f78edd68c, two hours after having been applied.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Samples for the Waldorf Blofeld:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldSamplesExtra

Re: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Ivan Vilata i Balaguer]

Achim Gratz (2012-11-14 20:44:55 +0100) wrote:

> Ivan Vilata i Balaguer writes:
>> Bastien (2012-11-13 23:02:40 +0100) wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what went wrong on your side but the patch
>>> has been applied here:
>>>
>>> http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/commit/?id=001bcb9645bf0a5ea72f09ae502a8410319473c0
>>
>> I apologise if I'm getting confused with git or the way the Org repo
>> is structured, but maybe the change was accidentally reverted later.
>
> It was reverted with 6f78edd68c, two hours after having been applied.

So the relative time specifications patch caused some kind of problem?
That'd be a real shame, the feature could be very useful. :(

Thanks for the info,

-- 
Ivan Vilata i Balaguer -- https://elvil.net/

Re: [PATCH] Time specifications: Allow specifying relative times

[Bastien]

Hi Ivan,

Ivan Vilata i Balaguer <ivan@selidor.net> writes:

> So the relative time specifications patch caused some kind of problem?

Yes.  The problem was that inactive time-stamps were not correctly
parsed anymore.

> That'd be a real shame, the feature could be very useful. :(

I just applied an updated patch to master which brings this useful
feature back.

Best,

-- 
 Bastien