ForumsSearch

Search results for "Posted by "

Author	Message
michael.read	Posted Nov 19, 2009 in: Number of tasks incorrect Score: 0 michael.read Posted: Nov 19, 2009 Score: 0 Please restore the ability to display the number of active tasks contained in each folder (on the folders page). I couldn't care less how many items have been filtered out of my list; I just want to know how many remain after applying my filters. Is there any way to revert to the older version of the app? This change is extremely annoying.
michael.read	Posted Jul 23, 2009 in: Start date gets erased in Outlook when syncing from ToodleDo Score: 0 michael.read Posted: Jul 23, 2009 Score: 0 If I set a start date for a task on ToodleDo.com; leave the due date set to 'no date'; then sync to Outlook; the task shows up in Outlook with no start date or due date. This screws up filtering (trying to hide future tasks when displayed in Outlook) From playing with this I found that Outlook doesn't allow a start date without a due date (although it does allow a due date without a start date). If you set a start date in Outlook, then try to set the due date to 'None'; it erases the start date. So; I would call this an Outlook bug (or at least a counter-intuitive feature) - but the chances of getting any kind of fix from Microsoft are probably pretty tiny. So I was wondering - would it be possible to enhance the sync utility to work around this problem? The simplest solution I can see would be to make sure the due date gets updated before the start date (Outlook seems to allow this) - but I'm not sure if that's actually possible - it depends whether the entire task is sync'd in one atomic transaction, or if it's done field-by-field. Another possibility would be to look @ both dates before syncing; if the due date is blank and the start date is not blank, then set the due date equal to the start date before syncing the task. This winds up making the Outlook task different from the ToodleDo task - but that's already true; and I think having the start date preserved would be 'closer' to correct. Any other suggestions?

Author

Message

Posted Nov 19, 2009 in: Number of tasks incorrect

Score: 0

michael.read
Posted: Nov 19, 2009
Score: 0

Please restore the ability to display the number of active tasks contained in each folder (on the folders page). I couldn't care less how many items have been filtered *out* of my list; I just want to know how many *remain* after applying my filters.

Is there any way to revert to the older version of the app? This change is extremely annoying.

michael.read

Posted Jul 23, 2009 in: Start date gets erased in Outlook when syncing from ToodleDo

Score: 0

michael.read
Posted: Jul 23, 2009
Score: 0

If I set a start date for a task on ToodleDo.com; leave the due date set to 'no date'; then sync to Outlook; the task shows up in Outlook with no start date *or* due date. This screws up filtering (trying to hide future tasks when displayed in Outlook)

From playing with this I found that Outlook doesn't allow a start date without a due date (although it does allow a due date without a start date). If you set a start date in Outlook, then try to set the due date to 'None'; it erases the start date. So; I would call this an Outlook bug (or at least a counter-intuitive feature) - but the chances of getting any kind of fix from Microsoft are probably pretty tiny.

So I was wondering - would it be possible to enhance the sync utility to work around this problem? The simplest solution I can see would be to make sure the due date gets updated before the start date (Outlook seems to allow this) - but I'm not sure if that's actually possible - it depends whether the entire task is sync'd in one atomic transaction, or if it's done field-by-field.

Another possibility would be to look @ both dates before syncing; if the due date is blank and the start date is not blank, then set the due date equal to the start date before syncing the task. This winds up making the Outlook task different from the ToodleDo task - but that's already true; and I think having the start date preserved would be 'closer' to correct.

Any other suggestions?