Booking: Developers skipping tasks

[Thomas Jarosch]

Hi there,

I'm new to the "booking" operation mode of TaskJuggler.

In the past I've just set the completion value to 100% until I discovered
this is not respected for scheduling. Since then I started removing
completed tasks and was done with it.

I'd like to keep the history now so I thought the "booking" mode
is the way to go.

Unfortunately sometimes the developers don't respect the order
of the tasks as specified in the project plan.

If I supply a booking for a task that starts in the future,
TaskJuggler outputs this:

-------------------------------------------------
roadmap.tjp:122: Error in scenario plan: Task step2.sub_task
(2012-03-06-15:00-+0000) must start after end (2012-05-15-13:00-+0000) of
task step1.
-------------------------------------------------

"step1" and "step2" are container steps containing sub-tasks.

How should I handle this?

Ideally I'd like to supply developer X worked on item Y
N hours and be done with it.

Cheers,
Thomas

[Chris Schlaeger]

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Thomas Jarosch
<thomas....@intra2net.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm new to the "booking" operation mode of TaskJuggler.
>
> In the past I've just set the completion value to 100% until I discovered
> this is not respected for scheduling. Since then I started removing
> completed tasks and was done with it.
>
> I'd like to keep the history now so I thought the "booking" mode
> is the way to go.
>
> Unfortunately sometimes the developers don't respect the order
> of the tasks as specified in the project plan.
>
> If I supply a booking for a task that starts in the future,
> TaskJuggler outputs this:
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> roadmap.tjp:122: Error in scenario plan: Task step2.sub_task
> (2012-03-06-15:00-+0000) must start after end (2012-05-15-13:00-+0000) of
> task step1.
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> "step1" and "step2" are container steps containing sub-tasks.
>
> How should I handle this?

TJ does not know what details you don't care about. It needs full
details for the past. The easiest way to generate those details if you
don't want to supply them all is to use the --freeze options to keep a
booking file. See
http://www.taskjuggler.org/tj3/manual/Day_To_Day_Juggling.html#Recording_Progress.

This may not capture the reality but it provides the data for TJ to
work properly. When you generate reports you can then decide what data
to ignore because you know it's wrong.

Chris

[Thomas Jarosch]

Hi Chris,

On Thursday, 24. May 2012 20:21:41 Chris Schlaeger wrote:
> TJ does not know what details you don't care about. It needs full
> details for the past. The easiest way to generate those details if you
> don't want to supply them all is to use the --freeze options to keep a
> booking file. See
> http://www.taskjuggler.org/tj3/manual/Day_To_Day_Juggling.html#Recording_
> Progress.
>
> This may not capture the reality but it provides the data for TJ to
> work properly. When you generate reports you can then decide what data
> to ignore because you know it's wrong.

Thanks for your feedback, it's highly appreciated.

TJ already reschedules all tasks that aren't fully done according to their
"booking" state. If the "first" task is late, all others will be late, too.
Also we have the "overtime" option for bookings which allows to schedule
worked hours during off-duty / vacation time.

Would it be possible to do a similar thing to specify
tasks weren't done in a linear fashion?

So TJ would normally complain if the bookings aren't linear
but a user can override it. That would help a lot.

Real world example: Some tasks depend on external input.
You normally move on to another task if one task
is blocked by waiting for external input.

Cheers,
TJ (Thomas Jarosch)

[Chris Schlaeger]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'linear'. You mean ignoring
task dependencies?

Chris

[Thomas Jarosch]

On Friday, 1. June 2012 21:20:33 Chris Schlaeger wrote:
> > TJ already reschedules all tasks that aren't fully done according to
> > their "booking" state. If the "first" task is late, all others will be
> > late, too. Also we have the "overtime" option for bookings which
> > allows to schedule worked hours during off-duty / vacation time.
> >
> > Would it be possible to do a similar thing to specify
> > tasks weren't done in a linear fashion?
> >
> > So TJ would normally complain if the bookings aren't linear
> > but a user can override it. That would help a lot.
> >
> > Real world example: Some tasks depend on external input.
> > You normally move on to another task if one task
> > is blocked by waiting for external input.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'linear'. You mean ignoring
> task dependencies?

Yes, I meant in "linear time". Dunno if that make it any clearer :)
Ignoring (automatic) task dependencies is what I meant.

Would this complicate the scheduler logic a lot? In my limited knowledge
of the scheduler it feels like just a restriction of the "booking" part,
though that's an uneducated guess.

Thomas

[Thomas Jarosch]

Hi Chris,

On Wednesday, 6. June 2012 17:56:07 Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'linear'. You mean ignoring
> > task dependencies?
>
> Yes, I meant in "linear time". Dunno if that make it any clearer :)
> Ignoring (automatic) task dependencies is what I meant.
>
> Would this complicate the scheduler logic a lot? In my limited knowledge
> of the scheduler it feels like just a restriction of the "booking" part,
> though that's an uneducated guess.

I've found a workaround: I've removed the manual "depends !previous_task"
dependencies. This screws up the wanted (display) order, but now I can use
the bookings on all the task.

Since the project already started, I don't care too much about the order.
All I want is to easily project the final end date when all is done :)

Thomas

[Chris Schlaeger]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Thomas Jarosch
<thomas....@intra2net.com> wrote:
> I've found a workaround: I've removed the manual "depends !previous_task"
> dependencies. This screws up the wanted (display) order, but now I can use
> the bookings on all the task.
>
> Since the project already started, I don't care too much about the order.
> All I want is to easily project the final end date when all is done :)

The first draft of a project plan is usually never even close to the
way the project happens. Changing tasks like adding or removing
dependencies is an integral part of the project management process. I
would not call this a workaround. If the dependency does not exist,
remove it. BTW, priorities may be a better way to model your task
order.

Chris

[Thomas Jarosch]

Hi Chris,

> The first draft of a project plan is usually never even close to the
> way the project happens. Changing tasks like adding or removing
> dependencies is an integral part of the project management process. I
> would not call this a workaround. If the dependency does not exist,
> remove it. BTW, priorities may be a better way to model your task
> order.

Thanks for your help. I'll try the priority based approach the next time.

Thomas