Re: [PATCH] Org Habit fix + new feature

[Morgan Smith <Morgan.J.Smith@outlook.com>]

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:
>
> I am not against such feature. However, using clocking will break an
> assumption that a single log record corresponds to a single habit
> completion. This assumption is implied across org-habit code.  
>
Oh that's a good point.  I'll have to go back through the code and see
if that's an issue.



As for your comments on the first patch, let me explain where the
current logic falls short.  Imagine you complete a habit multiple times
in a day because you're using org wrong (yep this also violates that
previous thing that I gotta look into but let's not worry about that for
now).  The current logic simply looks at the previous '(+
org-habit-preceding-days org-habit-following-days)' log records which by
default would be 28.  First of all, why are we looking into the future
at all?  I don't think the habits graph currently supports looking at it
from the perspective of a different day and I think marking things as
complete in the future is pretty odd.  Second of all, if we use org
wrong, then we will start loosing days at the beginning of the graph if
we have more then 28 log records in our period.

Now my patch calculates the first day of the graph and simply looks at
all log records before that date.  This is more robust if we want to use
org wrong. Also it's more intuitive I think.  In many cases I think it
will also be a performance boost since then we likely won't loop the
full 28 times.  Furthermore, this method would support looking at the
habits graph from the perspective of a different day (which blindly
looping 28 times does not).

This patch does not do a good job at adding support for repetitions.
The graph and logic still works in days, not repetitions.  It simply
makes the current code more robust.

> Also, (org-today) does not consider org-extend-today-until. (see
> org-habit-insert-consistency-graphs).

Thanks for catching that!

>
> This logic will fail for non-default combinations of org-log-into-drawer
> + org-clock-into-drawer + org-log-states-order-reversed.

Well shoot.  That's a bummer.  So why are we using a regex here anyways?
It feels not super robust.  Don't we have an AST we could use instead?
Also even if we do want to use regex, pulling out log records and clock
records seems like a pretty common thing to do that should be in a
core library function right?


Thanks for the review!
I appreciate your feedback


Morgan