Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Appearance settings
Discussion options

Hi, I have been using taskwarrior for a while and I really love the tool. After using the dependency features for a while I was wondering if we should have some kind of attribute that does the reverse of depends. For example what about having blocks:5 which makes the current task a dependency for task 5.

I kind of see why this might not be implemented since this modification would happen not at the task modified but on another task. Still I often run into this issue that I need to add a task that needs to be at the beginning of a dependency chain.

What do you think about this? Should something like that be implemented or not? Should this rather be some kind of extension to the system?

You must be logged in to vote

Replies: 5 comments · 1 reply

Comment options

It would make sense in the UI if it could be translated into the same dependency mapping as the depends property. But you're right, it'd be unusual for task A modify .. to modify something other than task A. What do others think?

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Comment options

Technically speaking, we could add a blocks property to the task modified and we modify the logic for the dependency calculation/searching algorithm but this would make it a lot more complex a probably a lot slower which wouldn't be ideal.

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Comment options

I have not used it myself, but for what it's worth there is the following hook that adds the pseudo-attribute for blocks:
https://gist.github.com/wbsch/a2f7264c6302918dfb30

You must be logged in to vote
1 reply
@LarsZauberer
Comment options

Thanks for the hint. I will check it out

Comment options

some other issues that are related/similar: #2184, #2608, #2528

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Comment options

btw I had always thought of blocks: as a useful filter, to "match all dependent tasks of the specified one(s)" (ie forward dependencies), whereas the existing depends: filter is a reverse-dependencies match, ie "all tasks which depend on the specified one(s)." However there is already precedent for dual-use of depends as both an attribute and a filter, so blocks could be that way also.

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Category
💡
Ideas
Labels
None yet
4 participants
Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.