Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 1de8930cf8
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| .AutoRefreshOnObservable(m => m.WhenAny(m => m.IsCanBeCompleted, m => m.IsCompleted, | ||
| m => m.UnlockedDateTime, (c, d, u) => c.Value && (d.Value == false))) | ||
| .AutoRefreshOnObservable(m => m.WhenAnyValue( | ||
| x => x.Title, | ||
| x => x.Description, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new Last Updated projection sorts and filters by TaskItem.UpdatedDateTime, but the change-set only auto-refreshes on IsCanBeCompleted, IsCompleted, UnlockedDateTime, Title, Description, and GetAllEmoji. As a result, edits that update UpdatedDateTime without changing those watched fields (for example Importance, planned dates, or repeater fields) will not re-run sort/filter, so tasks can stay in stale positions or remain hidden in the wrong date bucket until another watched property changes.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
|
||
| private static DateTimeOffset GetNextUpdatedDateTime(TaskItem task) | ||
| { | ||
| var now = DateTimeOffset.Now; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
GetNextUpdatedDateTime now uses DateTimeOffset.Now, while other task timestamps are written in UTC and the date filters normalize by adding the local offset. Storing this field with local offset makes that normalization apply twice in non-UTC environments, which can shift updates across day boundaries (especially near midnight) and misclassify tasks in the Last Updated date filters.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
No description provided.