Let instance view return instance DTSTART and DUE rather than the tas… #620

dmfs · 2018-01-08T10:12:29Z

…k values. Implements #615

This commit improves the instances view by returning the instance start and due times as task DTSTART and DUE. This way the UI will see the correct instance times.

From the UI perspective the instances view is now a list of individual non-recurring instances, which can be read and written on its own.

Note, for non-recurring tasks, this won't have any effect.

…k values. Implements #615 This commit improves the instances view by returning the instance start and due times as task `DTSTART` and `DUE`. This way the UI will see the correct instance times. From the UI perspective the instances view is now a list of individual non-recurring instances, which can be read and written on its own. Note, for non-recurring tasks, this won't have any effect.

lemonboston · 2018-01-08T13:13:10Z

opentasks-contract/src/main/java/org/dmfs/tasks/contract/TaskContract.java

+     * Note: The {@link #DTSTART}, {@link #DUE} values of instances of recurring tasks represent the actual instance values, i.e. they are different for each
+     * instance ({@link #DURATION} is always {@code null}).
+     * <p>
+     * Also, none of the instances are recurring themselves, so {@link #RRULE}, {@link #RDATE} and {@link #EXDATE} are always {@code null}.


Would it make sense to consider not using all of the TaskColumns in Instances here?
Since DURATION, RRULE, RDATE, EXDATE are always null.
Having something like a CommonTaskColumns?

no, the instances table should be compatible with the tasks table, i.e. instances are special case of a task. In particular, a projection that works on the task table should work on the instances table as well.

lemonboston · 2018-01-08T13:31:40Z

opentasks-provider/src/main/java/org/dmfs/provider/tasks/TaskDatabaseHelper.java

+            + Tables.LISTS + "." + Tasks.LIST_COLOR + ", "
+            + Tables.LISTS + "." + Tasks.VISIBLE
+            + " FROM " + Tables.TASKS
+            + " JOIN " + Tables.LISTS + " ON (" + Tables.TASKS + "." + TaskContract.Tasks.LIST_ID + "=" + Tables.LISTS + "." + TaskContract.Tasks._ID + ")"


At the end of the first join, shouldn't TaskContract.Tasks._ID be TaskContract.TaskLists._ID instead? I know it's effectively the same, but just for clarity.

Right, I'll fix that.

lemonboston · 2018-01-08T13:49:51Z

opentaskspal/src/main/java/org/dmfs/opentaskstestpal/InstanceTestData.java

@@ -79,7 +80,14 @@ public InstanceTestData(@NonNull Optional<DateTime> instanceStart, @NonNull Opti
                .withValue(TaskContract.Instances.INSTANCE_DURATION,


Is the Instances.INSTANCE_DURATION column need at all if it is always DUE which is used?

Instances.INSTANCE_DURATION was added for two reasons:

provide an easy way to the UI to get the actual absolute duration of an instance

provide an easy way to filter instances by their duration (e.g. in an SQL query)

both could certainly achieved with Instances.INSTANCE_START and Instances.INSTANCE_DUE, but considering that these might also be null (which would be returned as 0 by Cursor.getLong(int)), it would require more work work to achieve that without a duration column.

Oh, I realized that I mistook the override in the VIEW, I though it was INSTANCE_DURATION that is nulled but that's Tasks.DURATION... Ok, I see it then why this is needed.

dmfs · 2018-01-08T17:11:16Z

@lemonboston I've fixed the _ID column and also mapped the ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME value to the actual instance value. This is a bit more complicated because the instances table contains 0 instead of null for absent values.

lemonboston · 2018-01-08T18:17:14Z

And what is the reason for Instances table using 0 instead of null for ORIGINAL_INSTANCES_TIME?

lemonboston · 2018-01-08T18:31:51Z

opentasks-provider/src/main/java/org/dmfs/provider/tasks/TaskDatabaseHelper.java

+            // override task due and start times with the instance values
+            + Tables.INSTANCES + "." + TaskContract.Instances.INSTANCE_START + " as " + Tasks.DTSTART + ", "
+            + Tables.INSTANCES + "." + TaskContract.Instances.INSTANCE_DUE + " as " + Tasks.DUE + ", "
+            // also replace ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME.


Why is it needed to replace ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME? Doesn't it break the specification for that column on the contract? Its value will be different from what the docs says there, if I am not mistaken.

No not really. ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME is the time at which an instance occurs as per the specification in the master. The instances view represents a flattened view on the tasks, where each task instance is represented as a non-recurring override. Or in other words, it "emulates" an override for each instance of every (recurring or non-recurring) task.
So to me it makes sense to also "emulate" ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME if present.

This is still a bit confusing for me. Could you please remind me why is the Instances.INSTANCE_ORIGINAL_TIME column needed?

The docs for the two columns talk about almost the same things but with a bit different wording. Could it be maybe updated to be phrased the same? It could be easier to see the difference.

I'm using Instances.INSTANCE_ORIGINAL_TIME primarily as a sorting key for all instanced of a recurring task. Without it I can't sort regular instances and overrides in the correct order. Correct sorting is very helpful when syncing the instances specified in the master with the instances in the database.
Also, with this column it is easier to handle recurring tasks without a start. In this case we assume start == due and store that as the INSTANCE_ORIGINAL_TIME. Without it, we would have to check at usage time which value we need to use, start or due (because we still store null in the start column).

dmfs · 2018-01-08T20:39:23Z

The instances table uses 0 because that's easier to compare, no need to deal with null in Java code.

dmfs · 2018-01-08T20:44:21Z

Hmm... there seems to be only one place where it actually matters, I guess I can drop this requirement.

dmfs · 2018-01-08T21:42:07Z

@lemonboston I dropped the requirement of using 0 for INSTANCE_ORIGINAL_TIME of non-recurring tasks and simplified that view column.

Simplyfy instance view `ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME`

dmfs · 2018-01-09T09:28:34Z

@lemonboston I've also added some JavaDoc to the Instances contract to explain how the operations will affect the tasks. The insert behavior is not fully implemented yet, at least not in this branch. I'll post a separate PR to fix this.

lemonboston · 2018-01-09T15:33:50Z

Those javadocs for the Instances table look very useful.

I've checked the changes, no more questions from me besides the one about the ORIGINAL_TIMEs.

lemonboston

After discussing the purpose of ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME column on Slack, it is now clearer for me.
Regarding looking at every row in Instances table as overrides, would it make sense to add this note, too, to the Instances contact javadoc? Perhaps mentioning INSTANCE_ORIGINAL_TIME explicitly?

dmfs requested a review from lemonboston January 8, 2018 10:12

fix InstanceTestData test.

1fae8d5

lemonboston reviewed Jan 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

dmfs added 2 commits January 8, 2018 17:15

also override original instance time in instances table

bd99058

Also map instance table ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME to actual instance value

fb90b86

lemonboston reviewed Jan 8, 2018

View reviewed changes

Make INSTANCE_ORIGINAL_TIME use null for non-recurring tasks.

768a7b5

Simplyfy instance view `ORIGINAL_INSTANCE_TIME`

dmfs force-pushed the stories/615-instance-start-due branch from c058759 to 768a7b5 Compare January 9, 2018 09:26

lemonboston approved these changes Jan 9, 2018

View reviewed changes

dmfs merged commit 76dbaa7 into master Jan 9, 2018

dmfs deleted the stories/615-instance-start-due branch January 9, 2018 20:34

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Let instance view return instance DTSTART and DUE rather than the tas… #620

Let instance view return instance DTSTART and DUE rather than the tas… #620

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston Jan 8, 2018

dmfs Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston Jan 8, 2018

dmfs Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston Jan 8, 2018

dmfs Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston Jan 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston commented Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston Jan 8, 2018

dmfs Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston Jan 9, 2018 •

edited

Loading

dmfs Jan 9, 2018

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

dmfs commented Jan 9, 2018

lemonboston commented Jan 9, 2018

lemonboston left a comment •

edited

Loading

		@@ -79,7 +80,14 @@ public InstanceTestData(@NonNull Optional<DateTime> instanceStart, @NonNull Opti
		.withValue(TaskContract.Instances.INSTANCE_DURATION,

Let instance view return instance DTSTART and DUE rather than the tas… #620

Let instance view return instance DTSTART and DUE rather than the tas… #620

Conversation

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lemonboston Jan 8, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

lemonboston commented Jan 8, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lemonboston Jan 9, 2018 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

dmfs commented Jan 8, 2018

dmfs commented Jan 9, 2018

lemonboston commented Jan 9, 2018

lemonboston left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lemonboston Jan 8, 2018 •

edited

Loading

lemonboston Jan 9, 2018 •

edited

Loading

lemonboston left a comment •

edited

Loading