[minato2]

If you mark an action group as 'done', then all children of that action group get marked as 'done'.

But if you mark all children of an action group as 'done', then that action group does not get marked as 'done'. (You have to mark it manually.)

I don't like that behavior. I think an action group that only contains 'done' items should get marked as 'done' automatically. Am I wrong?

[SpiralOcean]

For the way I work with OF, this behavior would cause some problems.

I don't want the parent item to be automatically marked as done because frequently, there are other child actions I need to add to the action group before it is done.

[minato2]

Originally Posted by SpiralOcean

I don't want the parent item to be automatically marked as done because frequently, there are other child actions I need to add to the action group before it is done.

Then the state of the action group should switch back to 'not done', of course.

[GregO]

I would agree with SpiralOcean, having the parent checked off automatically might be OK if you've input every possible task for that parent before hand, but that's not the way most people work. It would actually be better if once you completed the items in the action group, the action group item itself would show up as an incomplete task in the contexts, so you could then either check it off as done or add additional tasks to move it along.

This behavior has been discussed to some extent in other threads, and I believe the OF folks are aware of the need to change this.

[minato2]

Originally Posted by GregO

I would agree with SpiralOcean, having the parent checked off automatically might be OK if you've input every possible task for that parent before hand, but that's not the way most people work.

Have you asked more than the half of all OmniFocus users how they use action groups? No? Then please don't tell me how most people work, because you just don't know it (any more than I do). The fact that you work a certain way doesn't mean that most people are working the same way. (Thankfully. ;))

Besides: If most of the OS X users would argue that '5 + 5' should return '11' in OS X's calculator (because it better fits the way they work), should Apple then change the way OS X's calculator works?

Let me give you an example: Uma Thurman as The Bride in Kill Bill creates the following (sequential) project:

(1) kill Bill's inferiors
- (1.1) kill Vernita Green
- (1.2) kill O-Ren Ishii
- (1.3) kill Elle Driver
- (1.4) kill Budd

(2) kill Bill

(1) is an action group that contains four child actions, (1.1) - (1.4). As soon as all child actions of (1) have been executed, (1) itself has been executed. (And The Bride can go on and execute (2).) (If you don't agree on this, google for '"category mistake"'.)

But what, you now ask, if there was another inferior of Bill (let's call him 'Ben') that The Bride didn't know of? Well, until she recognizes that Ben is another inferior of Bill, she still thinks that she killed all of Bill's inferiors, and she would therefore also check (1) as 'done' manually (if she had to, because her OmniFocus wouldn't check it off automatically).

[malisa]

But seeing it as a prompt/reminder to make sure that she's killed all Bill's inferiors would be a nice way for her to make sure she's prepared to kill Bill. It might make her think of Ben. (yes, I know, it might not).

I think the point in OF is that it makes AGs work more like mini-projects than they do now. And from what I've read on these forums (no, I don't know but it's an opinion arrived at from months of information gathering here) most people say they use AGs as mini-projects. So, it's logical that they function the way projects do, to the extent possible. If for nothing else to make it less confusing, more uniform, than it is now. IMHO.

[SpiralOcean]

Originally Posted by minato2

But what, you now ask, if there was another inferior of Bill (let's call him 'Ben') that The Bride didn't know of? Well, until she recognizes that Ben is another inferior of Bill, she still thinks that she killed all of Bill's inferiors, and she would therefore also check (1) as 'done' manually (if she had to, because her OmniFocus wouldn't check it off automatically).

When does she recognize there is another inferior of Bill?

When she is looking at contexts she would see this:
kill Vernita Green
grocery shopping
kill O-Ren Ishii
pick up ammunition
kill Elle Driver
kill Budd

She completes all those actions.

When she is doing her weekly review she sees this action group.
kill Bill's inferiors
She thinks... can I complete this action? Is there anything else I need to do to mark this complete?

This gives her pause. She thinks... have I killed Bill's inferiors? Then she remembers, wait no, there is another inferior. Ben. She adds Ben to her action group.

The root of this is the nature of planning in project view and completing in context view.

When a user is in context view, the actions are separated from the project. When I am in context view, I'm not thinking about the project I am in. I am thinking about the one action I need to complete.

The suggestion for changing the system that has been talked about is this.

In the context view, Uma sees this.
completed -kill Vernita Green
completed -grocery shopping
completed -kill O-Ren Ishii
completed -pick up ammunition
completed -kill Elle Driver
kill Budd

She completes that last action and the action group would show up in the context view:
kill Bills inferiors

At this point she can think... is there anything else I need to do to complete this action?

wait, there is, I need to kill ben.

She switches over to project view and adds another child action.
kill Bills inferiors
-kill Ben

she switches back over to context view and sees this
kill Ben

she completes that action and sees this
kill Bills inferiors

she thinks, is there anything else i need to do to complete this?

No?

then she completes
kill bills inferiors

[whpalmer4]

Originally Posted by minato2

Have you asked more than the half of all OmniFocus users how they use action groups? No? Then please don't tell me how most people work, because you just don't know it (any more than I do).

This topic has been discussed quite vigorously on the forum since action groups made their debut. There is not a consensus on the issue of whether action groups (or projects, for that matter) should auto-complete upon their last action being marked complete.

I hope that if the behavior changes, it does so in a way that allows those of us who like the current behavior (no forced auto-completion of action groups) to continue to have it. I certainly take advantage of the flexibility that OmniFocus provides in not forcing us to plan out an entire project or action group before starting, and often find that additional actions I could not have predicted when I sketched out the action group come to mind as I review my empty action groups before marking them complete. For some of my action groups (mostly those in repeating projects) I wouldn't mind auto-completion or what has been suggested by others, that the action group name show up in the context list when all the contained actions are complete, but for most of my more substantial projects, I would need the current behavior.

Besides: If most of the OS X users would argue that '5 + 5' should return '11' in OS X's calculator (because it better fits the way they work), should Apple then change the way OS X's calculator works?

Maybe you should go google "straw man" ;)