On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 01:36:05PM +0200, Bastien wrote:
Hi Adam,
this looks good to me, thanks a lot.
Thanks for the review :-)
Does "WIP" means that you want to wait for other patches to complete
this one or shall I apply this one already?
The intention is for it to be a standalone patch, so I don't think
there's any need to wait for other patches. The "WIP" was coming more
from the fact that I haven't done extensive testing to make sure I
didn't break a single one of the many sorting criteria - especially
this one:
+('category-keep (if (org-cmp-category a b) +1 nil)) ;; FIXME: check this
Ideally there would already be unit and/or functional tests covering
agenda sorting, but I can't see any and I imagine they would be
non-trivial to add (although perhaps not too difficult either).
Also, the previous behaviour was to silently ignore
user-defined-{up,down} if org-agenda-cmp-user-defined was not defined,
but that intuitively felt wrong to me (IMHO it kind of violates the
Principle of Least Surprise) so I didn't bother to preserve that
behaviour. However I admit that is a pretty subjective choice, so if
you think the existing behaviour should be preserved, I can tweak the
code to do that. In fact, even if you agree with me that it would be
better to generate an error when user-defined-{up,down} is used with
org-agenda-cmp-user-defined being nil, I just noticed that it currently
generates the very unhelpful error:
org-entries-cmp-1: Symbol’s function definition is void: nil
so we would want to explicitly catch that case and generate a more
helpful error message, e.g. "org-agenda-sorting-strategy contains
user-defined sorting but org-agenda-cmp-user-defined is nil".
BTW, as you can partially see from the below link, I did some
performance profiling relating to this change and it did indeed seem
to shave a few milliseconds off org-entries-lessp, although in the
grand scheme of things, that didn't make as much of a dent in
org-agenda's running time as I'd hoped for ;-)
https://gist.github.com/trishume/40bf7045a23412d4c016f5e8533437db#gistcomment-3494087
