Possible bug in ordered tasks

Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Robert Goldman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 689 bytes --]

I have found what I believe to be a bug in handling ordered subtasks.
Here is the behavior:

I have a top level set of tasks that is ordered.

One of the outline items below the top level set is a grab bag of tasks
that will be performed in parallel.  So this task is NOT ordered
(ORDERED: nil).

The problem is that the blocking behavior from ordered tasks seems to be
inherited from the top level task list into the second level of the
outline, even though the ORDERED property at the second level is
explicitly overridden.

I am attaching an org file that displays this issue.  To see the
problem, put your cursor on the "Bar" task and attempt to change its
status to DONE.

Cheers,
R


[-- Attachment #2: ordered.org --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 290 bytes --]

* Prepare white paper
  :PROPERTIES:
  :ORDERED:  t
  :END:

** TODO Draft outline

** TODO Writing assignments
   :PROPERTIES:
   :ORDERED:  nil
   :END:

*** DELEGATED Foo
    - State "DELEGATED"  from ""           [2010-06-18 Fri 10:32] \\
      Delegated.

*** TODO Bar

*** TODO Baz



[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Carsten Dominik]

Hi Robert,

On Jun 18, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:

> I have found what I believe to be a bug in handling ordered subtasks.
> Here is the behavior:
>
> I have a top level set of tasks that is ordered.
>
> One of the outline items below the top level set is a grab bag of  
> tasks
> that will be performed in parallel.  So this task is NOT ordered
> (ORDERED: nil).
>
> The problem is that the blocking behavior from ordered tasks seems  
> to be
> inherited from the top level task list into the second level of the
> outline, even though the ORDERED property at the second level is
> explicitly overridden.
>
> I am attaching an org file that displays this issue.  To see the
> problem, put your cursor on the "Bar" task and attempt to change its
> status to DONE.

The problem here is that the value of the ORDERED property is the  
string "nil", and that is of course not nil!

I have introduced a special case to have "nil" interpreted as nil  
here, because your use case makes a lot of sense.

Thanks!

- Carsten

Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Robert Goldman]

On 6/25/10 Jun 25 -2:03 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> On Jun 18, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> 
>> I have found what I believe to be a bug in handling ordered subtasks.
>> Here is the behavior:
>>
>> I have a top level set of tasks that is ordered.
>>
>> One of the outline items below the top level set is a grab bag of tasks
>> that will be performed in parallel.  So this task is NOT ordered
>> (ORDERED: nil).
>>
>> The problem is that the blocking behavior from ordered tasks seems to be
>> inherited from the top level task list into the second level of the
>> outline, even though the ORDERED property at the second level is
>> explicitly overridden.
>>
>> I am attaching an org file that displays this issue.  To see the
>> problem, put your cursor on the "Bar" task and attempt to change its
>> status to DONE.
> 
> The problem here is that the value of the ORDERED property is the string
> "nil", and that is of course not nil!
> 
> I have introduced a special case to have "nil" interpreted as nil here,
> because your use case makes a lot of sense.

Oh, dear.  That makes perfect sense, now that I think of it.

Question:  what is the proper way to get a NIL into a property?  Are we
to use () instead of "nil"?  Or are property values always interpreted
as strings?

Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question!

thanks!

Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:

> On 6/25/10 Jun 25 -2:03 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> On Jun 18, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>
>>> I have found what I believe to be a bug in handling ordered  
>>> subtasks.
>>> Here is the behavior:
>>>
>>> I have a top level set of tasks that is ordered.
>>>
>>> One of the outline items below the top level set is a grab bag of  
>>> tasks
>>> that will be performed in parallel.  So this task is NOT ordered
>>> (ORDERED: nil).
>>>
>>> The problem is that the blocking behavior from ordered tasks seems  
>>> to be
>>> inherited from the top level task list into the second level of the
>>> outline, even though the ORDERED property at the second level is
>>> explicitly overridden.
>>>
>>> I am attaching an org file that displays this issue.  To see the
>>> problem, put your cursor on the "Bar" task and attempt to change its
>>> status to DONE.
>>
>> The problem here is that the value of the ORDERED property is the  
>> string
>> "nil", and that is of course not nil!
>>
>> I have introduced a special case to have "nil" interpreted as nil  
>> here,
>> because your use case makes a lot of sense.
>
> Oh, dear.  That makes perfect sense, now that I think of it.
>
> Question:  what is the proper way to get a NIL into a property?  Are  
> we
> to use () instead of "nil"?  Or are property values always interpreted
> as strings?
>
> Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question!

Not a stupid question at all.

There is no way, currently.   Property values are string - the only  
way to make
org-entry-get return nil is to not have the property defined at all.

- Carsten

Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Robert Goldman]

On 6/25/10 Jun 25 -9:12 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
> 
> On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> 
>> On 6/25/10 Jun 25 -2:03 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> On Jun 18, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have found what I believe to be a bug in handling ordered subtasks.
>>>> Here is the behavior:
>>>>
>>>> I have a top level set of tasks that is ordered.
>>>>
>>>> One of the outline items below the top level set is a grab bag of tasks
>>>> that will be performed in parallel.  So this task is NOT ordered
>>>> (ORDERED: nil).
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that the blocking behavior from ordered tasks seems
>>>> to be
>>>> inherited from the top level task list into the second level of the
>>>> outline, even though the ORDERED property at the second level is
>>>> explicitly overridden.
>>>>
>>>> I am attaching an org file that displays this issue.  To see the
>>>> problem, put your cursor on the "Bar" task and attempt to change its
>>>> status to DONE.
>>>
>>> The problem here is that the value of the ORDERED property is the string
>>> "nil", and that is of course not nil!
>>>
>>> I have introduced a special case to have "nil" interpreted as nil here,
>>> because your use case makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> Oh, dear.  That makes perfect sense, now that I think of it.
>>
>> Question:  what is the proper way to get a NIL into a property?  Are we
>> to use () instead of "nil"?  Or are property values always interpreted
>> as strings?
>>
>> Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question!
> 
> Not a stupid question at all.
> 
> There is no way, currently.   Property values are string - the only way
> to make
> org-entry-get return nil is to not have the property defined at all.

OK, and there's no problem with this /except/ in cases where one wishes
to override inheritance, right?  I.e., you never need to specify nil at
the top level; it's only when you need to cancel a value that you are
inheriting....

best,
r

Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jun 25, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:

> On 6/25/10 Jun 25 -9:12 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/25/10 Jun 25 -2:03 AM, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 18, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have found what I believe to be a bug in handling ordered  
>>>>> subtasks.
>>>>> Here is the behavior:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a top level set of tasks that is ordered.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the outline items below the top level set is a grab bag  
>>>>> of tasks
>>>>> that will be performed in parallel.  So this task is NOT ordered
>>>>> (ORDERED: nil).
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that the blocking behavior from ordered tasks seems
>>>>> to be
>>>>> inherited from the top level task list into the second level of  
>>>>> the
>>>>> outline, even though the ORDERED property at the second level is
>>>>> explicitly overridden.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am attaching an org file that displays this issue.  To see the
>>>>> problem, put your cursor on the "Bar" task and attempt to change  
>>>>> its
>>>>> status to DONE.
>>>>
>>>> The problem here is that the value of the ORDERED property is the  
>>>> string
>>>> "nil", and that is of course not nil!
>>>>
>>>> I have introduced a special case to have "nil" interpreted as nil  
>>>> here,
>>>> because your use case makes a lot of sense.
>>>
>>> Oh, dear.  That makes perfect sense, now that I think of it.
>>>
>>> Question:  what is the proper way to get a NIL into a property?   
>>> Are we
>>> to use () instead of "nil"?  Or are property values always  
>>> interpreted
>>> as strings?
>>>
>>> Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question!
>>
>> Not a stupid question at all.
>>
>> There is no way, currently.   Property values are string - the only  
>> way
>> to make
>> org-entry-get return nil is to not have the property defined at all.
>
> OK, and there's no problem with this /except/ in cases where one  
> wishes
> to override inheritance, right?  I.e., you never need to specify nil  
> at
> the top level; it's only when you need to cancel a value that you are
> inheriting....

Exactly.

Cheers

- Carsten

Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Bernt Hansen]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>
>> Question:  what is the proper way to get a NIL into a property?  Are
>> we
>> to use () instead of "nil"?  Or are property values always interpreted
>> as strings?
>>
>> Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question!
>
> Not a stupid question at all.
>
> There is no way, currently.   Property values are string - the only
> way to make
> org-entry-get return nil is to not have the property defined at all.

I've wanted a similar thing in the past for the LOGGING property where
the parent task has special logging set via the LOGGING property but I
want to undo that for some of the child tasks so they use the default
logging setup.

Having a way to undefine a property would be good in general I think.

-Bernt

Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Carsten Dominik]

On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote:

> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>
>>> Question:  what is the proper way to get a NIL into a property?  Are
>>> we
>>> to use () instead of "nil"?  Or are property values always  
>>> interpreted
>>> as strings?
>>>
>>> Apologies in advance if this is a stupid question!
>>
>> Not a stupid question at all.
>>
>> There is no way, currently.   Property values are string - the only
>> way to make
>> org-entry-get return nil is to not have the property defined at all.
>
> I've wanted a similar thing in the past for the LOGGING property where
> the parent task has special logging set via the LOGGING property but I
> want to undo that for some of the child tasks so they use the default
> logging setup.
>
> Having a way to undefine a property would be good in general I think.

This does now work, the property value "nil" will now be interpreted as
explicit undefine of a property.

- Carsten

Re: Possible bug in ordered tasks

[Bernt Hansen]

Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 25, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote:
>
>> Having a way to undefine a property would be good in general I think.
>
> This does now work, the property value "nil" will now be interpreted as
> explicit undefine of a property.

Thanks!!

-Bernt