Re: recent org-mode changes: completion of repeated tasks reports "10 repeater intervals were not enough to shift date past today"

[Daniel Ortmann <daniel.ortmann@oracle.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2467 bytes --]

Another task which gives the same message with SCHEDULED instead of
DEADLINE; this one also uses "++" to repeat dates but with no "-0d". 
The result looks correct; only the message is bothersome.

I replied to the message 'y' twice and then 'n' to test the resulting
change.  Changes look fine:





From *Messages*:
10 repeater intervals were not enough to shift date past today. 
Continue? (y or n) y [2 times]
10 repeater intervals were not enough to shift date past today. 
Continue? (y or n) n
And later
Entry repeats: SCHEDULED: <2019-01-17 Thu 07:50 .+1d> Plain: [2019-01-17
Thu 07:50 .+1d] Plain: [2019-01-17 Thu 07:50 .+1d]


Here is the task:

** TODO one-on-one                                           :meeting:
   SCHEDULED: <2019-01-23 Wed 13:30-14:00 ++1w>
   :PROPERTIES:
   :LAST_REPEAT: [2019-01-17 Thu 10:39]
   :END:
   :LOGBOOK:
   - State "CANCELED"   from "TODO"       [2019-01-17 Thu 10:39]
   - State "DONE"       from "TODO"       [2019-01-09 Wed 14:14]
...
   :END:


On 1/15/19 8:43 AM, Bernt Hansen wrote:
> Daniel Ortmann <daniel.ortmann@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> No other tasks.  Here is the complete text with only one url removed:
>>
>> * TODO [#C] p6 time entry
>>   DEADLINE: <2019-01-18 Fri ++1w -0d>
>>   :PROPERTIES:
>>   :LAST_REPEAT: [2019-01-11 Fri 17:03]
>>   :END:
>>   :LOGBOOK:
>>
> <snip>
>
>> On 1/13/19 10:12 AM, Bernt Hansen wrote:
>>
>>     Daniel Ortmann <daniel.ortmann@oracle.com> writes:
>>
>>         I have a weekly scheduled task with ...
>>           DEADLINE: <2019-01-18 Fri ++1w -0d>
>>         
>>         Recently, when I complete the task it reports the following:
>>         
>>         Clock stopped at [2019-01-11 Fri 17:03] after 0:05
>>         10 repeater intervals were not enough to shift date past today. 
>>         Continue? (y or n) n
>>         
>>         Thoughts?
>>         
>>     Hi Daniel,
>>     
>>     Do you have some other repeating timestamp buried somewhere in that
>>     task?  It is probably moving that one forward and it is the one that
>>     needs more than 10 repeats to become current.
>>     
>>     There was a recent change that updates all repeating timestamps in the
>>     task.
>>     
>>     Regards,
>>     Bernt
> Sorry I can't reproduce what you are seeing.
>
> Regards,
> Bernt
>
>


[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/html, Size: 3858 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.2: faddhmfdkjkocnii.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 3251 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.3: mopdofoeflngkodo.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 4308 bytes --]