org-super-agenda
org-super-agenda copied to clipboard
Relative dates in deadlines and scheluded for before and after
Backward compatible improvement, org-read-date support a super-set of the previous function org-time-string-to-absolute.
Should be also an easy solution for #59.
Thanks, this looks like a nice improvement. I will look at it more closely when I have some time, hopefully soon.
+1, I use this patch locally and it's quite convenient.
Yes, I, too, think this would be incredibly useful, so much so, I submitted the exact same PR without realizing this one existed!
After one year I re-based the branch for my convenience, hopefully will also speed up the review and merge.
It would be great to see this merged!
Thanks for the ping and your patience.
Hello, I tried to add some tests with the last push, but failed. Please comment/suggest on the new tentative. Thanks
It shouldn't be necessary to use advice for this. See https://github.com/alphapapa/org-super-agenda/blob/369a4cdda1ddcbfd4428e5d3c88960ad94d76fa7/test/test.el#L214
Also, FYI, the advice you wrote uses the old-style advice. When writing advice, you should instead use the new-style nadvice
library that uses add-function
and advice-add
. See the Elisp manual.
Another try here! I found out out to get relative date to a fixed date... the test code is not very lispy but works and covers the obvious cases.
@alphapapa or anybody interested, please have a look at the patch and request changes or improve it! Thanks!
Any updates on this? Anything preventing this from being merged? This would be a mega-useful feature as there is no good workaround for this currently.
I did this as a local work around to adjust for the number of days. Hope it helps anyone else. It's a little janky.
(defun my/get-time-string-today-offset (dayOffSet)
(format-time-string "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M" (+ (string-to-number (format-time-string "%s" (current-time))) (* 86400 dayOffSet))))
And call it like this:
(let ((date (my/get-time-string-today-offset 5)))
....
`( ...
:scheduled (after ,date)
)
Any updates on this? Anything preventing this from being merged? This would be a mega-useful feature as there is no good workaround for this currently.
@eugr What prevents it from being merged is chiefly my lack of time to work on it. I don't have as much to spend on this project as I used to.
Besides that, there are issues of code quality, tests to be reviewed, etc. that must be addressed before it can be merged. Some of them I have mentioned to the PR's author in comments, so in that respect, the PR is waiting on him to address them, and then on me to re-review and confirm that it's appropriate for merging.
#225 is also a possibility for merging, but it also needs to be polished and re-reviewed, and its author has not responded to my last comment.
Of course, if either of these PRs works for you, you're free to use their code as-is right now.