Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature: Support BYSETPOS in MONTHLY rrule's #136

Closed
coreation opened this issue May 14, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Feature: Support BYSETPOS in MONTHLY rrule's #136

coreation opened this issue May 14, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@coreation
Copy link

coreation commented May 14, 2017

Description of the Issue:

As described on #15 it seems that the functionality of using BYSETPOS in a MONTHLY recurring rule is not yet implemented.

Steps to Reproduce:

FREQ=MONTHLY;BYSETPOS=3;BYDAY=MO;INTERVAL=1 would be an example of an occurrence rule.

As I'm not yet that familiar with the code, in the monthly recurrence where BYDAY is handled, it seems that in the do-while statement, the next week is passed as the next timestamp to apply the rule on. I'm not sure @u01jmg3 why this is the case, is this to support some rule that says every friday of the month? I'm throwing a wild guess out there, but if BYSETPOS is passed, we already know it's not going to be a weekly recurring event in that month, but a one-off event? Would that be sufficient to only run the do-while once per month instead of incrementing it per week?

@u01jmg3
Copy link
Owner

u01jmg3 commented May 14, 2017

... Would that be sufficient to only run the do-while once per month instead of incrementing it per week?

Yep, it would be and is what I have done to fix the problem. 👍

@u01jmg3 u01jmg3 self-assigned this May 14, 2017
@u01jmg3 u01jmg3 added this to the v2.x.x milestone May 14, 2017
@u01jmg3 u01jmg3 removed their assignment May 14, 2017
@coreation
Copy link
Author

coreation commented May 14, 2017

Awesome, in what branch was this merged into? I'd like to take it out for a spin ;)

Edit: nvm, it was in master? (9e4850d) I'm a bit vigilant to not let a project use a dev-master dependency, but in case of an implementation of a stale specification, like ical, I think it would quite safe(?)

@u01jmg3
Copy link
Owner

u01jmg3 commented May 14, 2017

I shall create a new release after a few more things have been fixed - until then dev-master (if new features are required) is your only choice, I am afraid.

@coreation
Copy link
Author

@u01jmg3 thanks for the quick reply! dev-master it is then, looking forward for the release ;)

u01jmg3 added a commit that referenced this issue May 16, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants