From: Chris Schlaeger (cs_at_suse.de)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 11:01:52 CEST
From: Chris Schlaeger <cs@suse.de> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 11:01:52 +0200 Message-Id: <200305051101.52993.cs@suse.de> Subject: [taskjuggler] Re: bug? - task "length" not really honoured ?
On Saturday 03 May 2003 00:40, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wondered how something could be done so fast in my real project,
> and I broke down the problem to the following test scenario:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> project test "test" "0.1" 2003-05-01 2003-05-30 { now 2003-05-01 }
>
> resource harry "harry" { vacation 2003-05-05 - 2003-05-30 }
>
> resource hugo "hugo"
>
> task work1 "work1" {
> start 2003-05-02
> length 10d
> allocate harry
> }
>
> task work2 "work2" {
> depends !work1
> duration 10d
> allocate hugo
> }
>
> htmlresourcereport "test.html" {
> sortresources sequenceup
> columns name, daily, effort
> hidetask 0
> loadunit hours
> }
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mysteriously, the resulting project plan suggests the work will
> be done during may - even faster than it would have been possible
> if harry did not go on vacation.
You have confused 'length' and 'effort'. Length simply requires the task to
last X working days, no matter whether resources are actually available or
not. If you want harry to work 10 days on work1 use 'effort 10d' instead of
'length 10d'.
> It seems the "length 10d" attribute of "work1" is simply ignored.
Yes, just like the manual says.
Chris
-- KDE 3.1: Conquer your Enterprise Desktop! See http://www.kde.org! GPG Key: 1024D/0500838B A5FE C051 2AFC 9A14 768A 5125 5829 5750 0500 838B
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Mon May 05 2003 - 11:03:44 CEST