[Chris]

Suppose you have a sequential action group with repeating actions in it. (The actions are set to repeat, but not the group.) How should it behave? What should happen when you complete the first action in the group?

I ask this because I set up some action groups like this to try to work around some problems I have with OF's behavior, and the result wasn't what I thought it would be. I'm wondering what other users think the correct behavior in this situation should be.

[brianogilvie]

Without testing it, I would expect that completing a repeating action would create a new repeating action in the same action group.

[Chris]

It does, but it creates it "in place"---in the same place that the original action sat. That seems reasonable, but in a sequential group with repeating actions, it means that the second, third, fourth, etc. actions never become available. Completing the first one just generates an identical action (with a more advanced due date) at the top of the group. It seems to me that in this situation (sequential action group), that the next iteration of a repeating action should be inserted at the bottom of the group when the original is completed, not at the top.

The current behavior basically means that sequential action groups shouldn't ever have repeating actions.

I'm curious what others think. If you agree with me, send feedback to OF. If not, why not? Is there a downside to my suggestion?

[ext555]

I thought when you set up repeating actions inside a repeating group that it warned you of that ? It used to ..

it usually works better to have the actions repeat and not the group.

[curt.clifton]

ext555, that's what Chris is doing. He has a repeating action inside a non-repeating group.

Chris, this is an interesting suggestion. Having the newly generated action roll to the bottom makes sense. I'm unable to come up with a scenario where that wouldn't work. If a user doesn't want the repeater to roll to the bottom (s)he can always put it inside a non-repeating action group to lock it in place versus its siblings.

To avoid inconsistent behavior, I think the repeaters should also roll to the bottom if they are in parallel groups. Otherwise I have to keep a complex mental model of the rules in order to understand why OF is doing what it is doing.

[Chris]

Regarding parallel groups, that's certainly reasonable, but my tendency would be to defer to the user a bit more in that case about the ordering of actions. For sequential groups, the current behavior definitely seems wrong (or at least, not useful) to me.

The same issue arises in projects, as far as I can tell, by the way.