search

nocejo / trev

Taskwarrior tasks reviewing script
Other
14 stars 1 forks source link

.rc file including options and review modes #31

Closed nocejo closed 9 years ago

nocejo commented 9 years ago

Issues #19 (new argument; -t 'this is ++mark and Selected text'), #22 (new argument; -f ~/.task/review/weekly.review[.txt]) and #23 (.rc option: info_view=on/off) give rise to the convenience of having a .trevrc file containing switches, default values and 'review modes'.

Specific review modes (as the active tasks, next actions,overdue tasks, marked for weekly review... proposed) can mimic the report mechanism in taskwarrior; i.e.: as the content:

report.minimal.columns    = id,description.count,tags.count,project
report.minimal.filter     = (status:pending or status:waiting)
report.minimal.labels     = ID,Description,Tags,Project
report.minimal.sort       = due-,project+/

defines the 'minimal' report in taskwarrior's ~/.taskrc file, some text like:

review.calls.filter     = urgency.over:12 +READY
review.calls.seltag     = +call
review.calls.acton      = mod +call
review.calls.actoff     = mod -call
review.calls.prompt     = 'trev calls> '
review.calls.lblstyle   = reverse bold
review.calls.sepstyle   = underline bold
review.calls.upaddtext  = Make these phone calls!
review.calls.loaddtext  = These are high-urgency actionable tasks!

can define the 'calls' mode in some .trevrc file.

nocejo commented 9 years ago

Starting from commit 918345b4912fcb5b4d45f0303e9f39ec781bda5c a branch trevcrc addresses this issue.

linuxcaffe commented 9 years ago

This looks like the way to go! fantastic!

linuxcaffe commented 9 years ago

I'm thinking about how more-complex reviews might be implemented, as an example, reviewing "required" attributes. If you consider "project" and "priority" attributes to be "required" you could set up a review for each one, naming those reviews

review.required-project...
review.required-priority...

then maybe 

trev required

matching both of those review definitions, might run the first review, and then the next one, in the order found in the rc, as part of the same "review".. does that make sense?

nocejo commented 9 years ago

I think so, and I think it can be done. Interesting suggestion.

Incidentally, it's better to move this request to a new issue of its own, so this issue (#31) can be properly closed when basic dot file development is completed and branch trevrc merged.

linuxcaffe commented 9 years ago

Glad to hear that makes sense. So I can properly for the new issue, what would the syntax be for "calling a review"?

trev.pl review required ?

or..

nocejo commented 9 years ago

The basic functionality is implemented and merged to master, then this issue is closed. Enhancements to the behavior of the rc file mechanism would give raise to other, new issues.