Inconsistent project behaviour

Suppose I have a perspective that has filter rule to show only available items. If I put a tag On Hold all the actions disappear from the list (as expected) with the exception of projects that are tagged with that on Hold tag and contain no action… That is weird I think because the perspective rule is to show only available.

But what is even weirder is that if I add an action to the project (still on hold) no the perspective will show no project and no action …

I suppose this is a bug.

The filters are on actions. A Project with no actions essentially falls through your filter of On Hold actions. When you add an action, the action (not the project) become visible to the filter.

See also the discussion at the link below for consequences filtering All or None.


JJW

Makes no sense: the system should not not make a difference between projects with one or more actions and projects with zero actions…
And the perspective that should only show available stuff should not show a project that is on hold due to the fact that its tag is on hold!
On top of that, if I manually put the project on hold (not via the tag), it will not show anymore! Totally inconsistent behavior!

@rparvu could you please post a screenshot of your perspective settings?

Welcome to OmniFocus. Sometimes, this is what it is.


JJW

I do not know how to take your statement …

I use Omnifocus for business so I need to rely that will show the tasks as expected.

@rparvu Thanks. Your perspective is quite straightforward, so the key is the availability of items. I don’t get the same behaviour as you describe:

When I add a tag which has the on-hold status to an empty project, that project item doesn’t appear in a perspective which filters on ‘Available’ items.

It shows TASKS as expected. PROJECTS are NOT tasks. On this you can rely.

Have you tried adding a filter condition such as this …

You would be searching here to eliminate Projects with no actions. NONE of Projects that have NO remaining actions becomes only Projects that have remaining actions.

Somewhat tongue in cheek. However also as emphasis that what appears to be an inconsistency (but) is really the consequence of a strict adherence to a filtering rule at the task level only.


JJW