From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>
Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by ms11 with LMTPS
	id lGkKASvo5l7JUwAA0tVLHw
	(envelope-from <emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 03:16:59 +0000
Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by mp2 with LMTPS
	id UCQDOCro5l6LTAAAB5/wlQ
	(envelope-from <emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 03:16:58 +0000
Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2009940668
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 03:16:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:39628 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1jkfcF-0002dQ-Bi
	for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:16:55 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47884)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <kyle@kyleam.com>) id 1jkfba-0002cz-A3
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:16:16 -0400
Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:55513)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <kyle@kyleam.com>) id 1jkfbX-0004UI-EY
 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:16:13 -0400
Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E449670C9;
 Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:16:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kyle@kyleam.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
 :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version
 :content-type; s=sasl; bh=w/PJbziM95WNJiTAou80Zk47QHg=; b=o0nCw3
 3oWdVp3BaI6B2LsQ5A6118/CsNgRQZ/36zsxQEArO0gMO23tw3X/0Vhh9KtFgo0p
 5Fxifz1inpaTeCBKi59jeAIepvyG0+lzCWAUs124RE8CyFxJ7L0wCkPWSQ+qcKSi
 CgI80Jk2hHfTeJzxUjL+D+HXqj3cF2qoG6YpI=
Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
 by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04564670C8;
 Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:16:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kyle@kyleam.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=kyleam.com;
 h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
 s=mesmtp; bh=N2C9c1ohVuXF7/5kT1A0LOwOl8pMgIaSvHxcj9UJ5m4=;
 b=kVo6oy6QRfG8w4ynnaB9uTvtDsnSuqXsW0FgHyle8GZTZfjZKU89tYwYrntK7VIaQ9KEy+DBmvkJXyBPPXEa6EhJe/EFe+pcefTqbBnQQ0uwvKEFrIKjhLTtkWDVXe00vItMdosaTrQFfIou0MU5xfkVEO4ZqToMENZc6qP2Fao=
Received: from localhost (unknown [45.33.91.115])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BE2D670C6;
 Sun, 14 Jun 2020 23:16:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kyle@kyleam.com)
From: Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com>
To: Stig Brautaset <stig@brautaset.org>
Subject: Re: tags-todo org-agenda-custom-command weirdness
In-Reply-To: <m2ftazm3l1.fsf@brautaset.org>
References: <m2ftazm3l1.fsf@brautaset.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 03:16:07 +0000
Message-ID: <87d061auiw.fsf@kyleam.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8E70652C-AEB6-11EA-BEBF-C28CBED8090B-24757444!pb-smtp1.pobox.com
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.108.70; envelope-from=kyle@kyleam.com;
 helo=pb-smtp1.pobox.com
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/06/14 23:16:09
X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS   = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy]
X-Spam_score_int: -27
X-Spam_score: -2.8
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN
X-Spam_action: no action
X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
 <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
 <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" <emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>
X-Scanner: scn0
Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com;
	dkim=pass header.d=pobox.com header.s=sasl header.b=o0nCw3 3;
	dkim=pass header.d=kyleam.com header.s=mesmtp header.b=kVo6oy6Q;
	dmarc=none;
	spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: -1.21
X-TUID: bup8xzzd/+fx

Stig Brautaset writes:

> I'm seeing some weirdness with tags-todo vs tags custom agenda commands.
> Below is the smallest case I've managed to narrow it down to. I would
> *expect* that all the a1-4 commands return the same results, and that
> the b1-4 return the same results. That is not what I'm seeing, however.
>
> (setq-default org-agenda-custom-commands
>             '(("a1" "A1" tags-todo "-PROJ/TODO")
>               ("a2" "A2" tags "-PROJ/TODO")
>               ("a3" "A3" ((tags-todo "-PROJ/TODO")))
>               ("a4" "A4" ((tags "-PROJ/TODO")))
>               
>               ("b1" "B1" tags-todo "-PROJ/DONE")
>               ("b2" "B2" tags "-PROJ/DONE")
>               ("b3" "B3" ((tags-todo "-PROJ/DONE")))
>               ("b4" "B4" ((tags "-PROJ/DONE")))))
>

I agree with your expectation that a1-4 should be the same.  Why do you
expect that b1-4 would be?  Shouldn't tags-todo consider only none-DONE
todo items, in the same spirit as m versus M?  In other words, I'd
expect b1 and b3 to be empty by definition.

> The effect of a1 & a2 appears identical to eachother, and a3 & a4 too,
> but a1-2 and a3-4 differ (in that the former seems to include scheduled
> items, but the latter does not.)

It's helpful if you provide a minimal test file.  I've tried to come up
with one that I think should capture what you're describing.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* TODO h1                                                               :PROJ:
* TODO h2
* DONE h3                                                               :PROJ:
* DONE h4
* TODO h5                                                               :PROJ:
SCHEDULED: <2020-06-14 Sun>
* TODO h6
SCHEDULED: <2020-06-14 Sun>
* DONE h7                                                               :PROJ:
SCHEDULED: <2020-06-14 Sun>
* DONE h8
SCHEDULED: <2020-06-14 Sun>
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

With that, a1-4 all show:

    scratch:    TODO h2
    scratch:    TODO h6

That doesn't match what you're seeing.  I'm testing with 706970 checked
out, the commit you reported in your follow-up message.

> What I'm seeing for b1-4 is even weirder. Here I observe b1, b2 and b4
> have identical behaviour[*], but b3 is the odd one out: while the other
> three return a list of DONE non-project tasks, b3 doesn't find anything.
>
> [*] I suspect the reason b2 and b4 are identical is that I have no
> scheduled DONE tasks.

For b2 and b4, I see

    scratch:    DONE h4
    scratch:    DONE h8

b1 and b3 are empty, which I think is expected given the tags-todo type.