Re: [O] Regression? Clocktable no longer includes TODO keywords

2017-07-12 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Michael Alan Dorman  writes:

> But that will actually end up in another column, won't it?

It will.

> As a bit of background: I have, historically, harvested the "Headline"
> column for a weekly report, which depends on the state of the headline
> being included---not including it there, even if it can be in a separate
> column, dramatically decreases the utility of the clocktable for me
> because it becomes a lot more work to produce that report.

The TODO keyword would still be on the same line as the heading, only
a few columns away from the location. Honestly, I don't see why it would
be a lot more work to produce that report.

If you don't succeed in updating your code, you may want to post it here
so Org users can help you.

Regards,



Re: [O] Regression? Clocktable no longer includes TODO keywords

2017-07-12 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
Thanks for your reply (and all the work you do on org), Nicolas.

> This doesn't ring a bell. Anyway, the current behaviour sounds right,
> since you can get TODO state with the "TODO" special property anyway.

But that will actually end up in another column, won't it?

As a bit of background: I have, historically, harvested the "Headline"
column for a weekly report, which depends on the state of the headline
being included---not including it there, even if it can be in a separate
column, dramatically decreases the utility of the clocktable for me
because it becomes a lot more work to produce that report.

Of course maybe the answer is that I should just write the elisp to
generate the report, but that's a big chunk of work, too. :()

For the moment, I guess I'll just stick with 9.05

Mike.




Re: [O] Regression? Clocktable no longer includes TODO keywords

2017-07-12 Thread Nicolas Goaziou
Hello,

Michael Alan Dorman  writes:

> Given the following document:
>
> * TODO Thingy
> ** TODO Sub-Thingy 1
>:LOGBOOK:
>CLOCK: [2017-07-12 Wed 07:15]--[2017-07-12 Wed 07:25] =>  0:10
>:END:
> ** DONE Sub-Thingy 2
>:LOGBOOK:
>CLOCK: [2017-07-12 Wed 07:25]--[2017-07-12 Wed 07:31] =>  0:06
>:END:
>
> I would previously get a clocktable like (simulated):
>
> #+BEGIN: clocktable
> #+CAPTION: Clock summary at [2017-07-12 Wed 07:32]
>
> | Headline  | Time   |  |
> |---++--|
> | *Total time*  | *0:16* |  |
> |---++--|
> | TODO Thingy   | 0:16   |  |
> | \_  TODO Sub-Thingy 1 || 0:10 |
> | \_  DONE Sub-Thingy 2 || 0:06 |
> #+END:
>
> Starting with (I believe) org 9.05, I get
>
> #+BEGIN: clocktable
> #+CAPTION: Clock summary at [2017-07-12 Wed 07:32]
>
> | Headline | Time   |  |
> |--++--|
> | *Total time* | *0:16* |  |
> |--++--|
> | Thingy   | 0:16   |  |
> | \_  Sub-Thingy 1 || 0:10 |
> | \_  Sub-Thingy 2 || 0:06 |
> #+END:
>
> I don't see any note of this in ORG-NEWS, so I assume it's a
> regression.  I haven't had a chance to really dig into it yet.

This doesn't ring a bell. Anyway, the current behaviour sounds right,
since you can get TODO state with the "TODO" special property anyway.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou



[O] Regression? Clocktable no longer includes TODO keywords

2017-07-12 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
Given the following document:

* TODO Thingy
** TODO Sub-Thingy 1
   :LOGBOOK:
   CLOCK: [2017-07-12 Wed 07:15]--[2017-07-12 Wed 07:25] =>  0:10
   :END:
** DONE Sub-Thingy 2
   :LOGBOOK:
   CLOCK: [2017-07-12 Wed 07:25]--[2017-07-12 Wed 07:31] =>  0:06
   :END:

I would previously get a clocktable like (simulated):

#+BEGIN: clocktable
#+CAPTION: Clock summary at [2017-07-12 Wed 07:32]
| Headline  | Time   |  |
|---++--|
| *Total time*  | *0:16* |  |
|---++--|
| TODO Thingy   | 0:16   |  |
| \_  TODO Sub-Thingy 1 || 0:10 |
| \_  DONE Sub-Thingy 2 || 0:06 |
#+END:

Starting with (I believe) org 9.05, I get

#+BEGIN: clocktable
#+CAPTION: Clock summary at [2017-07-12 Wed 07:32]
| Headline | Time   |  |
|--++--|
| *Total time* | *0:16* |  |
|--++--|
| Thingy   | 0:16   |  |
| \_  Sub-Thingy 1 || 0:10 |
| \_  Sub-Thingy 2 || 0:06 |
#+END:

I don't see any note of this in ORG-NEWS, so I assume it's a
regression.  I haven't had a chance to really dig into it yet.

Mike.