TracksApp / tracks

Tracks is a GTD™ web application, built with Ruby on Rails
https://www.getontracks.org/
GNU General Public License v2.0
1.17k stars 537 forks source link

"every N days" is ignored when changing weekly task to daily task #1445

Closed dnrce closed 10 years ago

dnrce commented 10 years ago

Migrated from the original issue at https://www.assembla.com/spaces/tracks-tickets/tickets/1445

I have some repeating todos that run weekly (every monday, wednesday, ...). I changed those todos so that they run every two days, by setting to "daily" and "every 2 days". This update worked out fine, however the todo is stored with "every 1 day" instead.

Originally reported by carsten.otto on September 9, 2013 at 13:20:04 (-0400) against version 2.2.2

dnrce commented 10 years ago

On September 9, 2013 at 04:54:27 (-0400), lrbalt commented:

and what happens if you edit the repeat pattern again to set it to every 2 days? does it work then?

dnrce commented 10 years ago

On September 9, 2013 at 05:31:18 (-0400), carsten.otto commented:

Yes.

dnrce commented 10 years ago

@C-Otto is this issue still present with the latest Tracks master? The recurring todos got a major refactor somewhat recently.

Edit: Never mind! The refactoring is in 2.3devel and this issue is for 2.2.3.

C-Otto commented 10 years ago

Fixed in 9a69b170fe366e85d14ab1c2ba82645ad57f5f46

I created a new repeating todo, weekly. Changed that to "daily, every 2 days".

lrbalt commented 10 years ago

Closing then :-)

dnrce commented 10 years ago

@lrbalt That was my mistake -- this issue is in 2.2_branch. @C-Otto retested with master @ 9a69b170fe366e85d14ab1c2ba82645ad57f5f46 and determined that it's no longer present there, but it's still an open issue for 2.2.3.

lrbalt commented 10 years ago

if we release 2.3, we can skip fixing 2.2.x :-)

dnrce commented 10 years ago

I thought we were perhaps going to do a last 2.2 bugfix release because it's the final version supporting Ruby 1.8.7. But if we're going to have this discussion we should do it on the mailing list. (There was a "release planning" thread on this topic a few months ago.)

lrbalt commented 10 years ago

It was not meant to start a discussion on releasing 2.2 or not :-) I is just that the 2.2 codebase is quite different from 2.3/master and finding and fixing this is not trivial.

dnrce commented 10 years ago

Actually, I'm pretty sure this was fixed in bd94135a5bc93cbb187ad164f57aabd263d36963. @C-Otto Can you confirm that you don't see it with the latest 2.2_branch?

C-Otto commented 10 years ago

My "production" system contains the fix of bd94135a5bc93cbb187ad164f57aabd263d36963 and I cannot reproduce the problem. Feel free to close this ticket :)

dnrce commented 10 years ago

Thanks for testing!