RTM plugin: Tasks from archived (= semi-deleted) lists are also synced
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTG |
Fix Released
|
Low
|
Luca Invernizzi | ||
Bug Description
I started using GTG but noticed that about 300 tasks from a distant past appeared in GTG after syncing with RTM.
It turned out these tasks came from archived lists.
Archived lists are lists that are as good as deleted, but are kept around just in case you need them. This allows you to ressurect a list and have it back the way it was when you (almost) "deleted" it. They don't show up in searches unless you add includeArchived
I propose not syncing tasks from archived lists, since they only cause confusion and clutter.
This should also speed up syncing, and in my case even double the speed.
Another solution would be to allow the user to configure whether or not to sync tasks from archived lists.
Related branches
- Luca Invernizzi (community): Needs Information
-
Diff: 142 lines (+37/-27)4 files modifiedAUTHORS (+1/-0)
CHANGELOG (+1/-0)
GTG/plugins/rtm_sync/rtmProxy.py (+3/-2)
GTG/plugins/rtm_sync/syncEngine.py (+32/-25)
| description: | updated |
| summary: |
- Tasks from archived (= semi-deleted) lists are synced + RTM plugin: Tasks from archived (= semi-deleted) lists are synced |
| summary: |
- RTM plugin: Tasks from archived (= semi-deleted) lists are synced + RTM plugin: Tasks from archived (= semi-deleted) lists are also synced |
| Pieter Leclerc (pieterleclerc-deactivatedaccount) wrote | #1 |
| Luca Invernizzi (invernizzi) wrote | #2 |
| tags: |
added: plugins removed: plugin rtm |
| Changed in gtg: | |
| status: | New → Confirmed |
| importance: | Undecided → Low |
| assignee: | nobody → Luca Invernizzi (invernizzi) |
| milestone: | none → 0.3 |
| Pieter Leclerc (pieterleclerc-deactivatedaccount) wrote | #3 |
| Changed in gtg: | |
| status: | Confirmed → Fix Committed |
| Changed in gtg: | |
| milestone: | 0.3 → 0.2.2 |
| Changed in gtg: | |
| status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
Fixing this in a branch, more details follow...