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

Question: How to honor scope-specific TODO keywords #53

Open
vidbina opened this issue Oct 4, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Question: How to honor scope-specific TODO keywords #53

vidbina opened this issue Oct 4, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@vidbina
Copy link
Contributor

vidbina commented Oct 4, 2022

Hi @rasendubi,

Is there an idiomatic approach to update the options while parsing? There are a few todoKeywords defined as default and it is unclear how I idiomatically adapt these as I parse a text to allow for the detection of custom keywords.

For example, the following document is valid Org with support or multiple keywords as documented in https://orgmode.org/manual/Per_002dfile-keywords.html (it is technically part of the TODO extensions, so arguably not standard Org and therefore I can imagine that you may consider this out-of-scope for this project):

#+title: Engineering
#+TODO: TODO(t) IN_SCOPING WIP IN_DEV IN_TEST | DONE(d@) CANCELLED(c@)

* Prototype
#+TODO: TODO(t) | DONE(d)
#+TODO: REPORT(r) BUG(b) KNOWNCAUSE(k) | FIXED(f)
#+TODO: | CANCELED(c)

** DONE Scaffold basic app

** BUG Timeouts on large files

** IN_SCOPING Build basic collaborative editing functionality

Just the basics, not even rich-text at the time. 🤷🏿‍♂

* Infrastructure 
** TODO Provision database
** TODO Provision compute env

Keywords other than TODO and DONE don't get parsed as todoKeywords unless I set the options before I start to parse.

🎁 I would want the parser to adapt its keywords list based on what it reads from TODO, TYP_TODO and SEQ_TODO keywords throughout a document such that a section's own keywords are honored. Potentially, populate a stack as we propagate through the heading trees may be a way to go around it.

❓ Curious to hear your thoughts a) w.r.t facilitating this functionality and b) whether this feature fits within the scope of the project? Additionally, if you would be open to a PR for this, do you have any thoughts on how one should go ahead and implement this to fit well with you general vision for this project?

@rasendubi
Copy link
Owner

rasendubi commented Oct 5, 2022 via email

@rasendubi
Copy link
Owner

rasendubi commented Oct 5, 2022 via email

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