Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tasklib still incompatible with default timewarrior hook #19

Open
Smith4545 opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Tasklib still incompatible with default timewarrior hook #19

Smith4545 opened this issue Apr 17, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@Smith4545
Copy link

So... #11 is still an issue by 2023 and I just wasted 2 hours on that.

Just using taskpirate with the default timewarrior on-modify hook results in this:

Tracking "Testing" Project a e i p r t v
  Started 2023-04-17T20:35:33
  Current                  33
  Total               0:00:00

(the set tag was "private")

Please make an annotation in the README that hooks should be named in a way, that stuff that isn't meant to run with taskpirate comes alphabetically prior to taskpirate.

The order of execution can simply be checked with task diagnostics:

     Active: on-addZZ-pirate                (executable)
             on-modify01-timewarrior        (executable)
             on-modifyZZ-pirate             (executable)
   Inactive: pirate_add_shift_recurrence.py (executable)unrecognized hook name

I fully acknowledge that this isn't a bug of this project, but this bug makes taskpirate just incompatible with the default upstream timewarrior hook if people take the default naming scheme of taskwarrior and timewarrior.

@dkasak
Copy link

dkasak commented May 26, 2023

I've too been bitten by this. Which I have to say really undermines my confidence in the robustness of tasklib/taskpirate, as just silently changing the type isn't really playing nice with others.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants