[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] Why is ":CLOCK => hh:mm" allowed as a clock entry?
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [O] Why is ":CLOCK => hh:mm" allowed as a clock entry? |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:26:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden> writes:
> I am studying the `org-clock-sum' function (I need to parse an Org file
> and extract clocking data), and I noticed that ":CLOCK => hh:mm" is
> allowed as a clock entry. The Org syntax at
> https://orgmode.org/worg/dev/org-syntax.html#Clock,_Diary_Sexp_and_Planning
> confirms this.
CLOCK:
and
CLOCK: => hh:mm
are simply empty clocks.
> What is the rationale behind this?
Treating them as regular text would complicate parsing unnecessarily,
e.g., to determine when to stop a paragraph.
There are other cases that can lead to odd clocks:
CLOCK: INACTIVE-TIMESTAMP => HH:MM
where INACTIVE-TIMESTAMP is not a timestamp range.
> I want not only to sum the clocks (org-clock-sum does that, of
> course), but I want more detailed information (like how many clocks
> were that in the given period etc.). The format with only the duration
> makes this troublesome, and I'd like to ignore such entries (I have
> never seen them in my files, of course). I'm wondering what scenario
> could lead to their existence?
Hand-writing a clock information?
In any case, you can simply ignore them whenever you find them – which
shouldn't happen, right?
We can also add a checker in Org Lint for those problematic cases.
> BTW, the syntax draft says that there can be any TIMESTAMP object before
> the DURATION, but `org-clock-sum' assumes that its timestamps are
> inactive. Isn't that a bug?
This is an oversight. Clock timestamps must be inactive. I will fix it.
Thank you.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou