Again it happended. But now it happoend with vanilla nodes, as I replaced all clones by copies of the respective nodes. A section is cut off at
```bash which becomes a node title. This node's body contains then all the sub nodes of the respective Leo tree. What I need is an @auto-md that does not read, which for me makes no sense anyway: The content is in my Leo tree and should just be written into an MD-file, that will be processed by mkdocs. Cheers Paul On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 12:58:51 PM UTC+2 p.os...@datec.at wrote: > Thanks a lot! > > As for the loss of "cloneness" upon opening the file: I had this as well > and got a hint here in this group (IIRC). Now the clones keep being clones > and my Leo file has a node "@persistence" not added by me, but > automatically somehow. > > > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:47:19 PM UTC+2 tbp1...@gmail.com wrote: > > The GitHub issue is 3355 > <https://github.com/leo-editor/leo-editor/issues/3355>. > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:40:25 AM UTC-4 Thomas Passin wrote: > > The loss of clones is specific to *@auto-md* trees (although I have not > tested other *@auto-xx* trees): > > In an outline with both *@clean* and an *@auto-md* trees, when the > outline is closed and re-opened, the clone nodes of the *@clean* tree > remained but the clone nodes of the *@auto-md* tree were no longer clones. > > I don't know what the original intention was with respect to *@auto-md > *trees, > but this seems like a serious bug to me. I'll create an issue for it. > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 10:10:34 AM UTC-4 Thomas Passin wrote: > > I see where the problem is - or at least *a* problem - is, and it's > serious. The problem I see is that when an outline with clones is > re-opened, the clones are no longer clones. This did not happen when I > created some clones in my Workbook, so there are some conditions yet to be > determined. I'll experiment some more to try to pin it down. The outline > which showed the problem had both an *@auto-md* and an *@clean* tree. > I'll try outlines with them separately and report back. > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:22:58 AM UTC-4 Thomas Passin wrote: > > @Edward recently re-worked some of the importers. If you can use the > current version of the devel branch (in GitHub) it would be worth trying. > Can you share a tree that suffers from the problem? Or a minimal version > that does? > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 5:12:30 AM UTC-4 p.os...@datec.at wrote: > > Sorry, it's Leo 6.6.4 on Arch Linux. > > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 8:17:44 PM UTC+2 tbp1...@gmail.com wrote: > > I tried out what you wrote and didn't get an error with an *@auto-md* > file. It is only a tiny, simple file so maybe it's not enough of a test. > Here is what I did: > > 1. Created an @auto-md file with the following structure: > > @clean c:\temp\leo\md-test-at-auto-md.md > Markdown Test Tree > A1 > A1.1 > A1.1.1 > A2 > > 2. I added a line *@others *to the top of the body of the top node. I > wrote a line or two for most of the nodes. Then I saved the outline. > 3. I added a new top-level node outside the *@auto-md* node. I cloned > node *A1* into it. > 4. In the cloned *A1.1* node, I added a new line. > 5. I observed in an external editor that the *@auto-md* file had the > intended change. > 6. I closed and reopened the outline. > 7. I did not see any corruption in the outline. > > Could you write more detail about the *@auto-md* file that ended up with > a corrupted outline, and whether you use an *@others* line in it? And is > this the only such file that caused a problem? And also the version of Leo > and the OS (though it doesn't seem likely that the OS is playing a part). > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 1:58:13 PM UTC-4 Thomas Passin wrote: > > Maybe @clean or even @file would work for you (not that I've tried them > with clones, which I'll try out soon) instead of @auto-md. I don't think > that @auto-md really gets you anything that they don't, although you will > need to put *@language md* at the start of the body of the top node. > > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 12:51:48 PM UTC-4 p.os...@datec.at wrote: > > An example: > > @auto-md file1.md > clone-node_1 > clone-node_2 > > @auto-md file2.md > clone-node_1 > clone-node_2 > > Changes in a clone causes (don't know exactly when, probably when reading > the LEO file) that the tree hierarchy is partially destroyed. The content > remains, but ends up in a node that didn't exist before and whose heading > consists of parts of the content. > > I think this could be prevented if @auto-md would only write. Do I see > that right? And can I force this somehow? > > Best regards > Paul > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/de6df626-1abe-4956-bbab-1b2ddca6944cn%40googlegroups.com.
