Actually it does work, as for my example. The next deferred and due is wrong but if i check the task off, a new deferred task will show up in the correct date. 29th June. The description does not match the behaviour.
IMHO, repeating task does not mean it has a due date because a due date means there would be consequences if i do not complete it on that day, like a fine perhaps. A task like cleaning my desk does not have a hard/“real” penalty. Its just there to remind me, but I can delay it for another day without any real consequences.
@ryanfuse I get what you’re saying, but something repeating must be due before the next instance of it becomes available, non?
If I merge what we’re saying, I could totally see a recurring weekly task deferred until each Monday (i.e. not due, but an available action), but wouldn’t it logically have to be due by Sunday, before the next instance of the same action becomes available?
@deturbulence No i don’t think something repeating must have a due. The “due” would be when i check the task off, or when it’s the next repeating date.
So in this case, the “right” behaviour for defer would be to create a new task relative to when i check the task off.
The “right” behaviour for “repeat every” would be when the date comes. For example, If i have a task repeating everyday, OF could have 6 similar task in 6 days if i didn’t check any of it off. Or if i choose, have another option to simply delete old task and show me only the current day task. It’s repeating but it auto deletes if i don’t do it.
Unless, of course i put a due date on it, not OF. Then it would simply have duplicates and then overdue in Forecast.
Why would a repeating task have a due date even if i don’t choose to have one is beyond me. Due date means due date. Not auto due.
@ryanfuse I understand the desired behaviour you’re describing in OF, but I guess I’m not understanding when that behaviour would be valuable. Can you give a use case of where having multiple instances of the same task is valuable?
To me, if you’re okay having six instances of a daily task, then it isn’t really a daily task. Otherwise, you’d do it every day. I guess I equate the repeat in OF to the frequency I need something done, therefore due.
As an example, if I have a weekly task of “balance chequebook”, I’m not going to balance it six times on a Wednesday if I have failed to complete the task the six previous weeks.
Perhaps a better approach would be “defer again after completion”, as opposed to setting a specific repeating period? That frees you up to decide when something should be done, no due date, and no generation of multiple instances of the same task, right?
@ryanfuse Yeah it’s interesting how personal al this stuff is - everyone has their own nuances and expectations for workflows. We all all have unique takes on:
what we want to have happen
how we want that to work
This was a good discussion - I didn’t even know about defer after completion until I looked in to how I would handle what you’re describing with my workflows. So thank you :)
