From: Chris Schlaeger (cs_at_suse.de)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 14:14:43 CEST
From: Chris Schlaeger <cs@suse.de> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:14:43 +0200 Message-Id: <200305051414.44080.cs@suse.de> Subject: [taskjuggler] Re: bug? - task "length" not really honoured ?
On Monday 05 May 2003 11:43, Lutz Vieweg wrote:
> Chris Schlaeger wrote:
> >>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.
>
> Yes, but in the resulting project plan TaskJuggler calculates the task
> is finished in only one day! And that shouldn't be possible... even if
> Harry does not have to work on it, there's no way this task is finished
> after one day, only.
>
> >>It seems the "length 10d" attribute of "work1" is simply ignored.
> >
> > Yes, just like the manual says.
>
> But then why isn't it ignored if Harry is not on vacation? (try deleting
> the vacation in the "Harry" resource).
>
> It doesn't seem plausible a project can be finished earlier because
> of somebody going on vacation...
Ahh, sorry. Now I see the problem. It can probably considered a bug.
TaskJuggler trims off non-allocated days from both ends of a task. While this
is reasonable for effort-based tasks, it's not a good idea for length-based
tasks. I have to think again about the side effects of such a change, but I
geuss this has to be fixed.
> > If you want harry to work 10 days on work1 use 'effort 10d' instead of
> > 'length 10d'.
>
> Hmmm... but the task does not take 10 days of effort from Harry, in fact,
> after setting up something it doesn't take any time at all from anybody,
> but a computer has to collect some data for at least 10 working days... and
> this cannot be done in a day.
>
> How can I describe that appropriately?
You can split the task into several sub-tasks that model the real situation
more closely.
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 - 14:16:39 CEST