A question about org-super-links-backlink-prefix customization

[vincent-picaud]

I have two files

• _fileA.org

file_A.org
* Introduction

• _fileB.org

file_B.org
* Introduction

what I would like when I create links is

• _fileA.org

* Introduction
:PROPERTIES:
:ID:       045bb041-3130-4ef8-bf50-f9ad0b284180
:END:
A link: [[id:a54fca82-c47a-4529-aa51-bb14403801a0][Introduction]]

• file_B.org

• Introduction :PROPERTIES: :ID: a54fca82-c47a-4529-aa51-bb14403801a0 :END: :BACKLINKS: <<- file_A::[[id:045bb041-3130-4ef8-bf50-f9ad0b284180][Introduction]] :END:

  I have modified `org-super-links-backlink-prefix` as follows:

  (setq org-super-links-backlink-prefix

  '(lambda () (concat "<<- " (file-name-nondirectory (file-name-sans-extension (buffer-file-name))) "::"))))

  
  but with that what I get is 

• file_B.org

• Introduction :PROPERTIES: :ID: a54fca82-c47a-4529-aa51-bb14403801a0 :END: :BACKLINKS: <<- file_B::[[id:045bb041-3130-4ef8-bf50-f9ad0b284180][Introduction]] :END:

  
  You see that "file_B" is used instead of "file_A". The reason is that (buffer-file-name)  is evaluated in _file_B.org_ when the back link drawer is created. What I would like is the function that returns me the buffer-file-name of file_A.org instead.
  Maybe this function is already avalaible in _org-super-links.el_.  Do you have an idea to help me ?

Thank you for this package ! :)

[toshism]

Hey, interesting, you are right on the reason why it functions that way. I'll try to take a look at the code soon and see if there is a good way to handle that use case. It's been a bit since I've looked closely at it.

[toshism]

So unfortunately it looks like there is not really a straightforward way to do what you want. You could duplicate the org-super-links--insert-link and org-super-links-insert-backlink functions. Change org-super-links--insert-link to pass in the marker to the source as an extra param in the call to org-super-links-insert-backlink and then jump to the marker there to get the buffer name. You could do something similar by modifying org-super-links-links-action. Both feel pretty gross though.

If I think of something better I'll let you know.

[vincent-picaud]

Thank you for spending time to think about my problem.

I understand, and this is a valuable feedback.

Do you want me to close this question or to keep it active ?