You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the UG, under section 6.3, it is stated that parameters can be specified multiple times and only the last occurrence will be counted. Furthermore, under section 6.3.5, the UG does not state that parameters cannot be specified multiple times.
However, todo show does not allow multiple specifications of a parameter. The severity is just low since the error message shown in the GUI states that 'at most one condition at a time' is accepted, which could clarify how this function works. However, given the UG documentation, one could take that statement to mean that only specify one condition can be specified, but the command is still accepted if that condition is specified multiple times. I.e.: todo show p/low p/high is accepted but `todo show p/low date/11-11-2022' is not. Thus, there is still some confusion, which I think would justify this as a documentation bug. Documentation could do better in stating this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the UG, under section 6.3, it is stated that parameters can be specified multiple times and only the last occurrence will be counted. Furthermore, under section 6.3.5, the UG does not state that parameters cannot be specified multiple times.
However,
todo show
does not allow multiple specifications of a parameter. The severity is just low since the error message shown in the GUI states that 'at most one condition at a time' is accepted, which could clarify how this function works. However, given the UG documentation, one could take that statement to mean that only specify one condition can be specified, but the command is still accepted if that condition is specified multiple times. I.e.:todo show p/low p/high
is accepted but `todo show p/low date/11-11-2022' is not. Thus, there is still some confusion, which I think would justify this as a documentation bug. Documentation could do better in stating this.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: