GNU bug report logs - #22735
24.3; org-set-effort *without* numeric prefix - still forces me to use nth allowed

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#22776: closed (interactive org-set-effort (C-c C-x e) and
 column view direct index selection do not handle Effort_ALL with more than
 10 entries)
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 11:20:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sat, 07 Jul 2018 13:19:46 +0200
with message-id <871scfjnsd.fsf <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
and subject line Re: bug#22776: interactive org-set-effort (C-c C-x e) and column view direct index selection do not handle Effort_ALL with more than 10 entries
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #22735,
regarding interactive org-set-effort (C-c C-x e) and column view direct index selection do not handle Effort_ALL with more than 10 entries
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
22735: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=22735
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: David Caldwell <ddcows2006 <at> yahoo.com>
To: "bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org" <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org>
Subject: interactive org-set-effort (C-c C-x e) and column view direct index
 selection do not handle Effort_ALL with more than 10 entries
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:56:15 +0000 (UTC)

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

This bug is a replacement of bug #22735(24.3; org-set-effort *without* numeric prefix - still forces me to use nth allowed).  After more experimentation, I got a better understanding of the functionality and now consider that bug 22735 to be invalid as written.  I now think it's a more fundamental issue of not handling an Effort_ALL with more than 10 entries.  The problems manifest in both interactive org-set-effort and in column view when editing values via direct index selection.
Problems:  1) interactive org-set-effort     1) can not enter an index > 10     2) method of entering a raw value is arcane and unvalidated        - by prefixing the entered value by '-', you can enter one of the Effort_ALL string directly          - e.g. Effort_ALL 0 1h 2h 4h 1d 2d 3d 4d 1w 2w 3w 4w          - 'C-c C-x e -4w RET' sets Effort to '4w'          - however, a value of '-foobar' sets Effort to 'foobar'     3) Note: org-set-effort with numerical prefix works properly for indices > 10  2) column view - editing values     1) 1-9,0 - can not enter an index > 10        - lower priority than 1.1 above since column view edit 'e' allows direct entry of Effort_ALL strings (with validation)     2) Note: S-left/right, n, p work properly for indices > 10Proposed solution:  - interactive org-set-effort and column view direct index selection    - input multiple characters followed by RET    - if input is a valid index, use the corresponding value from Effort_ALL    - else if input is a valid Effort_ALL value, use it    - else beep and display [No Match] (like column view edit when an invalid value is entered)
David

[Message part 4 (text/html, inline)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: David Caldwell <ddcows2006 <at> yahoo.com>
Cc: 22735-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 22776-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#22776: interactive org-set-effort (C-c C-x e) and column view
 direct index selection do not handle Effort_ALL with more than 10 entries
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 13:19:46 +0200

Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> I've changed `org-set-effort' to use `completing-read' for allowed
> values instead of relying on position in list. The prefix argument now
> means "increment". 
>
> This is simpler and less exotic.
>
> WDYT?

Since there is no answer from the OP, I assume this is fixed.

I'm closing the bug report.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.