Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Thanks Jack for the helpful response and support of my assessment. I do intend to fix this as part of my ongoing (but currently delayed) work on improving agenda sorting and adding an option to manually sort. On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 07:07, Jack Kamm wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > > I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by > > including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour > > I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'. > > For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the > > `agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences > > in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation > > and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by > > category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the > > Principle of Least Surprise. > > I just ran into this issue you highlight here. > > In particular, I was trying to set the org-agenda-sorting-strategy to > > (priority-down scheduled-down) > > i.e., sorting by priority (highest first), and then within priority, > sorting by scheduled (most recent first). > > However, the fact that the priority includes the scheduled timestamp > makes this sorting strategy impossible. > > I agree this seems like a bug, in that it contradicts the written > documentation as far as I can tell (for example, the *Help* for > org-agenda-sorting-strategy mentions nothing of the fact that the > priority includes the scheduled timestamp, and I don't see anything > about it in the *Info* either). > > I imagine that many have gotten used to the default behavior of sort by > highest priority, then by earliest scheduled timestamp, but we could > keep this default behavior by adding "scheduled-up" after > "priority-down" in org-agenda-sorting-strategy, as you allude. > > Jack
Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Hi Adam, > I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by > including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour > I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'. > For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the > `agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences > in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation > and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by > category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the > Principle of Least Surprise. I just ran into this issue you highlight here. In particular, I was trying to set the org-agenda-sorting-strategy to (priority-down scheduled-down) i.e., sorting by priority (highest first), and then within priority, sorting by scheduled (most recent first). However, the fact that the priority includes the scheduled timestamp makes this sorting strategy impossible. I agree this seems like a bug, in that it contradicts the written documentation as far as I can tell (for example, the *Help* for org-agenda-sorting-strategy mentions nothing of the fact that the priority includes the scheduled timestamp, and I don't see anything about it in the *Info* either). I imagine that many have gotten used to the default behavior of sort by highest priority, then by earliest scheduled timestamp, but we could keep this default behavior by adding "scheduled-up" after "priority-down" in org-agenda-sorting-strategy, as you allude. Jack
Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Thanks a lot - appreciate the feedback!
On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 at 23:38, Samuel Wales wrote:
> if my opinion is worth anything [perhaps not much here :]], i like
> your proposals and the idea of being able to re-sort an existing
> agenda assuming that is your goal.
>
> i don't use any priority sorting except in user-customizable but it
> makes sense to decouple them for those who do. and i frequently want
> to differently sort an existing agenda view.
>
>
> On 12/22/20, Adam Spiers wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 02:20:53PM +, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>I'm currently working on adding a feature to org-agenda which allows
> >>manual ordering of entries in combination with the existing automatic
> >>ordering (as dictated by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy').
> >>
> >>During my investigations I noticed that while `org-get-priority' converts
> >>[#B] style cookies into a numeric priority which is a multiple of
> >>1000, further adjustments are made in functions like
> >>`org-agenda-get-scheduled' before adding this numeric priority as a
> >>text property on the entry:
> >>
> >>'priority (if habitp (org-habit-get-priority habitp)
> >>(+ 99 diff (org-get-priority item)))
> >>
> >>In this case `diff' refers to the number of days between now and when
> >>the item was scheduled. A slightly different calculation is made in
> >>`org-agenda-get-timestamps':
> >>
> >>(org-add-props item props
> >> 'priority (if habit?
> >>(org-habit-get-priority (org-habit-parse-todo))
> >> (org-get-priority item))
> >>
> >>I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by
> >>including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour
> >>I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'.
> >>For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the
> >>`agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences
> >>in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation
> >>and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by
> >>category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the
> >>Principle of Least Surprise.
> >
> > [snipped]
> >
> >>Given that `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' now supports all manner of
> >>sorting criteria, many of which are time-sensitive, I would like to
> >>know if there is any reason not to remove this overloading of the
> >>priority calculation, i.e. decoupling it to depend purely on the
> >>result of `org-get-priority' and `org-habit-get-priority'?
> >>
> >>If fact, perhaps we could go one step further and add support for new
> >>habit-priority-{up,down} sorters to `org-agenda-sorting-strategy', so
> >>that the priority-{up,down} sorters sort purely by the priority cookie
> >>and nothing else?
> >
> > Gently bumping this as I didn't get any replies yet. I would like to
> > continue working on a solution, but obviously don't want to waste time
> > on something which would be rejected.
> >
> > If it is considered important to preserve the exact behaviour
> > currently offered by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' then I would
> > propose the following:
> >
> > - Keep the existing priority-{up,down} which combine priority cookies
> >with timestamp data and the result from `org-habit-get-priority',
> >but probably also deprecate it and remove it from the default value.
> >
> > - Introduce new priority-cookie-{up,down} sorters which operate purely
> >on [#A] and [#1] style priority cookies and nothing else.
> >
> > This would facilitate decoupling of the sortable criteria whilst
> > remaining backwards compatible.
> >
> > Does this sound reasonable? I am keen to proceed very soon (ideally
> > over the Xmas break). I have already written some new ert tests for
> > `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' which would be included in any submitted
> > patches.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Adam
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Kafka Pandemic
>
> Please learn what misopathy is.
>
> https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
>
Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
if my opinion is worth anything [perhaps not much here :]], i like
your proposals and the idea of being able to re-sort an existing
agenda assuming that is your goal.
i don't use any priority sorting except in user-customizable but it
makes sense to decouple them for those who do. and i frequently want
to differently sort an existing agenda view.
On 12/22/20, Adam Spiers wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 02:20:53PM +, Adam Spiers wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I'm currently working on adding a feature to org-agenda which allows
>>manual ordering of entries in combination with the existing automatic
>>ordering (as dictated by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy').
>>
>>During my investigations I noticed that while `org-get-priority' converts
>>[#B] style cookies into a numeric priority which is a multiple of
>>1000, further adjustments are made in functions like
>>`org-agenda-get-scheduled' before adding this numeric priority as a
>>text property on the entry:
>>
>>'priority (if habitp (org-habit-get-priority habitp)
>>(+ 99 diff (org-get-priority item)))
>>
>>In this case `diff' refers to the number of days between now and when
>>the item was scheduled. A slightly different calculation is made in
>>`org-agenda-get-timestamps':
>>
>>(org-add-props item props
>> 'priority (if habit?
>>(org-habit-get-priority (org-habit-parse-todo))
>> (org-get-priority item))
>>
>>I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by
>>including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour
>>I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'.
>>For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the
>>`agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences
>>in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation
>>and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by
>>category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the
>>Principle of Least Surprise.
>
> [snipped]
>
>>Given that `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' now supports all manner of
>>sorting criteria, many of which are time-sensitive, I would like to
>>know if there is any reason not to remove this overloading of the
>>priority calculation, i.e. decoupling it to depend purely on the
>>result of `org-get-priority' and `org-habit-get-priority'?
>>
>>If fact, perhaps we could go one step further and add support for new
>>habit-priority-{up,down} sorters to `org-agenda-sorting-strategy', so
>>that the priority-{up,down} sorters sort purely by the priority cookie
>>and nothing else?
>
> Gently bumping this as I didn't get any replies yet. I would like to
> continue working on a solution, but obviously don't want to waste time
> on something which would be rejected.
>
> If it is considered important to preserve the exact behaviour
> currently offered by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' then I would
> propose the following:
>
> - Keep the existing priority-{up,down} which combine priority cookies
>with timestamp data and the result from `org-habit-get-priority',
>but probably also deprecate it and remove it from the default value.
>
> - Introduce new priority-cookie-{up,down} sorters which operate purely
>on [#A] and [#1] style priority cookies and nothing else.
>
> This would facilitate decoupling of the sortable criteria whilst
> remaining backwards compatible.
>
> Does this sound reasonable? I am keen to proceed very soon (ideally
> over the Xmas break). I have already written some new ert tests for
> `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' which would be included in any submitted
> patches.
>
> Thanks!
> Adam
>
>
--
The Kafka Pandemic
Please learn what misopathy is.
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-some-diseases-are-wronged.html
Re: overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Hi again,
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 02:20:53PM +, Adam Spiers wrote:
Hi all,
I'm currently working on adding a feature to org-agenda which allows
manual ordering of entries in combination with the existing automatic
ordering (as dictated by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy').
During my investigations I noticed that while `org-get-priority' converts
[#B] style cookies into a numeric priority which is a multiple of
1000, further adjustments are made in functions like
`org-agenda-get-scheduled' before adding this numeric priority as a
text property on the entry:
'priority (if habitp (org-habit-get-priority habitp)
(+ 99 diff (org-get-priority item)))
In this case `diff' refers to the number of days between now and when
the item was scheduled. A slightly different calculation is made in
`org-agenda-get-timestamps':
(org-add-props item props
'priority (if habit?
(org-habit-get-priority (org-habit-parse-todo))
(org-get-priority item))
I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by
including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour
I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'.
For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the
`agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences
in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation
and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by
category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the
Principle of Least Surprise.
[snipped]
Given that `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' now supports all manner of
sorting criteria, many of which are time-sensitive, I would like to
know if there is any reason not to remove this overloading of the
priority calculation, i.e. decoupling it to depend purely on the
result of `org-get-priority' and `org-habit-get-priority'?
If fact, perhaps we could go one step further and add support for new
habit-priority-{up,down} sorters to `org-agenda-sorting-strategy', so
that the priority-{up,down} sorters sort purely by the priority cookie
and nothing else?
Gently bumping this as I didn't get any replies yet. I would like to
continue working on a solution, but obviously don't want to waste time
on something which would be rejected.
If it is considered important to preserve the exact behaviour
currently offered by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' then I would
propose the following:
- Keep the existing priority-{up,down} which combine priority cookies
with timestamp data and the result from `org-habit-get-priority',
but probably also deprecate it and remove it from the default value.
- Introduce new priority-cookie-{up,down} sorters which operate purely
on [#A] and [#1] style priority cookies and nothing else.
This would facilitate decoupling of the sortable criteria whilst
remaining backwards compatible.
Does this sound reasonable? I am keen to proceed very soon (ideally
over the Xmas break). I have already written some new ert tests for
`org-agenda-sorting-strategy' which would be included in any submitted
patches.
Thanks!
Adam
overloading of internal priority calculations in agenda
Hi all,
I'm currently working on adding a feature to org-agenda which allows
manual ordering of entries in combination with the existing automatic
ordering (as dictated by `org-agenda-sorting-strategy').
During my investigations I noticed that while `org-get-priority' converts
[#B] style cookies into a numeric priority which is a multiple of
1000, further adjustments are made in functions like
`org-agenda-get-scheduled' before adding this numeric priority as a
text property on the entry:
'priority (if habitp (org-habit-get-priority habitp)
(+ 99 diff (org-get-priority item)))
In this case `diff' refers to the number of days between now and when
the item was scheduled. A slightly different calculation is made in
`org-agenda-get-timestamps':
(org-add-props item props
'priority (if habit?
(org-habit-get-priority (org-habit-parse-todo))
(org-get-priority item))
I further noticed that this overloading of the internal priority by
including timestamp and habit data causes disruption to the behaviour
I imagine most users would expect from `org-agenda-sorting-strategy'.
For example, if you have `priority-down' as the first entry in the
`agenda' section and `category-keep' as the second, then differences
in the SCHEDULED timestamp are included in the priority calculation
and can therefore prevent sorting of two adjacent [#B] items by
category. This seems like a bug to me, or at least breaks the
Principle of Least Surprise.
I did some git archaelogy and found that the first ever git commit
4be4c562 (for release 4.12a) already includes
`org-agenda-sorting-strategy', but at that point, time-{up,down} were
the only time-related sorting criteria available.
I was also wondering where the magic 99 number above came from, and I
found that the same (first ever) commit introduced the following
priority calculation:
(+ (- 5 diff) (org-get-priority txt))
Subsequently, commit 70b6cc5d (for release 5.10a) changes this to:
(+ 94 (- 5 diff) (org-get-priority txt))
and then commit 69ec6258 (on 2016-11-25) changes it to
(+ 99 diff (org-get-priority item))
Given that `org-agenda-sorting-strategy' now supports all manner of
sorting criteria, many of which are time-sensitive, I would like to
know if there is any reason not to remove this overloading of the
priority calculation, i.e. decoupling it to depend purely on the
result of `org-get-priority' and `org-habit-get-priority'?
If fact, perhaps we could go one step further and add support for new
habit-priority-{up,down} sorters to `org-agenda-sorting-strategy', so
that the priority-{up,down} sorters sort purely by the priority cookie
and nothing else?
Thanks!
Adam
